And now, Jon Stewart’s bit on “You Didn’t Build That,” the most inflammatory right wing meme since “Obama Ate Dog.”
(Also testing our new HTML 5 video support for Comedy Central clips.)
1 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:15:35pm |
my dog was built because of free enterprise thank you very much
| 2 |
jaunte Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:16:30pm |
I don't think his using the word "those" would have changed a thing.
| 3 |
EiMitch Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:17:46pm |
I didn't click the video, and its automatically DLing. There is no option to make it stop other than closing the browser tab. Its wasting bandwidth.
In case it matters, I'm using firefox on win7.
| 4 |
darthstar Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:18:04pm |
I'm sure the Soviet judges will give @MittRomney a 10.0 for level of difficulty. #romneyshambles #p2b— Sean McCabe (@darthstar99) July 27, 2012
| 5 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:20:49pm |
re: #3 EiMitch
I didn't click the video, and its automatically DLing. There is no option to make it stop other than closing the browser tab. Its wasting bandwidth.
In case it matters, I'm using firefox on win7.
Same here.
| 6 |
keithgabryelski Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:22:14pm |
Thomas Paine:
Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.
| 7 |
darthstar Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:22:47pm |
| 8 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:24:53pm |
Chrome/Linux
Video didn't auto-play (just showed a standard "click to play" style arrow).
Clicked it - now it's on the endless spinning-bubble loop.
| 9 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:27:47pm |
The full context is pretty bad too. As best as I can till, this is a pretty complete, uncropped version of the comments being put out by the Romney campaign in an internet ad:
| 10 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:33:21pm |
re: #9 BryanS
The full context is pretty bad too. As best as I can till, this is a pretty complete, uncropped version of the comments being put out by the Romney campaign in an internet ad:
[Embedded content]
he's talking about how we all need roads, schools, and police and suchlike to give us the framework that makes starting and running a business possible, and we didn't build the roads or create the police force ourselves
also, most people can't run businesses without employees or customers, so generally you need them, too
| 11 |
Vicious Babushka Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:33:31pm |
re: #9 BryanS
The full context is pretty bad too. As best as I can till, this is a pretty complete, uncropped version of the comments being put out by the Romney campaign in an internet ad:
[Embedded content]
Obama's lips don't match the words he's allegedly saying. So what is he really saying?
| 12 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:35:52pm |
re: #10 engineer cat
he's talking about how we all need roads, schools, and police and suchlike to give us the framework that makes starting and running a business possible, and we didn't build the roads or create the police force ourselves
also, most people can't run businesses without employees or customers, so generally you need them, too
Romney said virtually the same thing a couple of weeks ago. It's obviously true that everything depends on a certain level of societal interdependence.
| 13 |
Charleston Chew Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:36:08pm |
re: #9 BryanS
The full context is pretty bad too. As best as I can till, this is a pretty complete, uncropped version of the comments being put out by the Romney campaign in an internet ad:
[Embedded content]
"..and with the taxes we pay, we built those roads..."
Odd argument for an anti-tax group. "We built those roads... but we wish we didn't"
| 14 |
gwangung Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:36:20pm |
re: #10 engineer cat
he's talking about how we all need roads, schools, and police and suchlike to give us the framework that makes starting and running a business possible, and we didn't build the roads or create the police force ourselves
also, most people can't run businesses without employees or customers, so generally you need them, too
A lot of folks think in terms of systems. Lone actors don't make sense in terms of systems.
| 15 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:39:02pm |
re: #13 Charleston Chew
"..and with the taxes we pay, we built those roads..."
Odd argument for an anti-tax group. "We built those roads... but we wish we didn't"
It's the conservative view of government spending. There are only two categories:
- stuff that benefits me
and
- waste
| 16 |
Charleston Chew Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:39:55pm |
And if they're gonna show little kids with a lemonade stand as representative of how Americans don't need government, they damn well better show those kids pouring concrete for the sidewalk to put their damn "business" on.
And yes, it's "business" in quotation marks because people only buy from kids to be nice and support them so it's basically socialism.
| 17 |
goddamnedfrank Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:41:43pm |
re: #9 BryanS
The full context is pretty bad too. As best as I can till, this is a pretty complete, uncropped version of the comments being put out by the Romney campaign in an internet ad:
[Embedded content]
The full context is bad for those that can't understand plain English and think those people in the video are actually listening to Obama's speech. Those stoic looking dumbshit actors in Romney's ad didn't build society's bridges and roads, they didn't teach themselves to read or think critically, they aren't responsible for the infrastructure and system of public services that allows for our success and neither is the most successful business owner. Romney's ad also left out "The point is, is that when we succeed we succeed because of our individual initiative but also because we do things together."
But there's no teaching the Ayn Rand reading supermen this obvious fact, because they're too busy sucking off their own egos. If government, teachers, infrastructure, the justice system, firefighters and the general environment didn't play a dominant role in the success or failure of business then why aren't Fortune 500 companies moving to Somalia?
| 18 |
Vicious Babushka Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:42:35pm |
re: #16 Charleston Chew
And if they're gonna show little kids with a lemonade stand as representative of how Americans don't need government, they damn well better show those kids pouring concrete for the sidewalk to put their damn "business" on.
And yes, it's "business" in quotation marks because people only buy from kids to be nice and support them so it's basically socialism.
Most kids who have lemonaid stands don't squeeze lemons they picked from the lemon trees in their backyard. They make pitchers of Minute-Maid which their mother bought at Kroger.
| 19 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:44:11pm |
re: #17 goddamnedfrank
This. The whole "Going Galt" idea has been around for ages now and as crowded as the earth is there are still places around that are relatively uninhabited.
So why haven't any of these supermen tried it?
| 20 |
Decatur Deb Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:45:54pm |
re: #19 iossarian
This. The whole "Going Galt" idea has been around for ages now and as crowded as the earth is there are still places around that are relatively uninhabited.
So why haven't any of these supermen tried it?
Oh, they're working on it:
[Link: www.seasteading.org...]
| 21 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:48:11pm |
re: #10 engineer cat
he's talking about how we all need roads, schools, and police and suchlike to give us the framework that makes starting and running a business possible, and we didn't build the roads or create the police force ourselves
also, most people can't run businesses without employees or customers, so generally you need them, too
The point was pretty clear in the Obama campaign speech that he was making a traditional left argument for increasing taxes. He goes out of his way to say that just because you work hard, were smart about how you ran your business, that those qualities are not the reason for your success. It frames the businessman as just lucky and does not deserve the benefits of their hard work--others who did not have this 'luck' need your earnings because they are everyone's earnings. That is not a winning political message except to those firmly on the left.
The real substance of the Obama campaign blurb that lead to the 'you didn't build that' brouhaha is the reason this issue will not be dropped by the GOP. 'you didn't build that' may not have had the precise meaning in the Obama speech that it has been characterized in attack ads. But the phrase 'out of context' summarizes the full context and content of his speech.
| 23 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:48:52pm |
re: #20 Decatur Deb
Oh, they're working on it:
[Link: www.seasteading.org...]
Haha seasteading.
It's not true "Going Galt" though because right there on the front page they admit they want to recreate government, not abolish it.
I do like the idea that they'll generate economic value by making precious objects out of whale sputum though.
| 24 |
Decatur Deb Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:50:12pm |
re: #22 jaunte
The Mosquito Coast.
Lovely "Culture and Personality" study for some future anthropologist. The phrase behavioral sink will be used a lot.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 25 |
gwangung Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:51:20pm |
re: #21 BryanS
The point was pretty clear in the Obama campaign speech that he was making a traditional left argument for increasing taxes. He goes out of his way to say that just because you work hard, were smart about how you ran your business, that those qualities are not the reason for your success. It frames the businessman as just lucky and does not deserve the benefits of their hard work--others who did not have this 'luck' need your earnings because they are everyone's earnings. That is not a winning political message except to those firmly on the left.
The real substance of the Obama campaign blurb that lead to the 'you didn't build that' brouhaha is the reason this issue will not be dropped by the GOP. 'you didn't build that' may not have had the precise meaning in the Obama speech that it has been characterized in attack ads. But the phrase 'out of context' summarizes the full context and content of his speech.
That's a simple minded reading. Most businessmen think its their own talents that make them succeed. That is correct. They also think there is a certain amount of luck involved, which their acumen took advantage of.
Systems, my good man, systems. You must make e entire system work and not get mono focused not one part.
| 26 |
andres Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:52:23pm |
re: #21 BryanS
The point was pretty clear in the Obama campaign speech that he was making a traditional left argument for increasing taxes. He goes out of his way to say that just because you work hard, were smart about how you ran your business, that those qualities are not the reason for your success. It frames the businessman as just lucky and does not deserve the benefits of their hard work--others who did not have this 'luck' need your earnings because they are everyone's earnings. That is not a winning political message except to those firmly on the left.
The real substance of the Obama campaign blurb that lead to the 'you didn't build that' brouhaha is the reason this issue will not be dropped by the GOP. 'you didn't build that' may not have had the precise meaning in the Obama speech that it has been characterized in attack ads. But the phrase 'out of context' summarizes the full context and content of his speech.
Actually, no.
BTW, either you're Buck, or your his twin brother. I can't distinguish between you too.
| 27 |
bubba zanetti Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:52:35pm |
| 28 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:53:03pm |
re: #17 goddamnedfrank
The full context is bad for those that can't understand plain English and think those people in the video are actually listening to Obama's speech. Those stoic looking dumbshit actors in Romney's ad didn't build society's bridges and roads, they didn't teach themselves to read or think critically, they aren't responsible for the infrastructure and system of public services that allows for our success and neither is the most successful business owner. Romney's ad also left out "The point is, is that when we succeed we succeed because of our individual initiative but also because we do things together."
But there's no teaching the Ayn Rand reading supermen this obvious fact, because they're too busy sucking off their own egos. If government, teachers, infrastructure, the justice system, firefighters and the general environment didn't play a dominant role in the success or failure of business then why aren't Fortune 500 companies moving to Somalia?
The bolded part--the attacks on Obama are intended to attack precisely this message, that the success of the business is because the government was critical to making the business successful. Government doesn't do anything without the taxes paid for by successful businesses and the payroll income generated by those businesses.
| 29 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:53:22pm |
re: #21 BryanS
It doesn't frame them as just lucky, no. He's pointing out that businesses need society to thrive. That's all. It's not some sneaky socialist message.
| 30 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:53:40pm |
re: #21 BryanS
Sigh. It only has that meaning if you're paranoid about your own merits.
I'm comfortable saying that I'm a pretty high-achieving guy. But I'm sane enough to realize that without stable government and a reasonably fair societal system I'd be living in a shack with a poor life expectancy and crappy quality of life.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. Obama's point is quite simply that your hard work wouldn't be enough without the framework that society provides. If that hurts your feelings then tough shit.
| 31 |
Decatur Deb Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:54:18pm |
re: #23 iossarian
Haha seasteading.
It's not true "Going Galt" though because right there on the front page they admit they want to recreate government, not abolish it.
I do like the idea that they'll generate economic value by making precious objects out of whale sputum though.
That is backed by a lot of Silicon Valley libertarian money. They also plan to exploit the mainland parasitically by commuting from outside the territorial waters.
| 32 |
keithgabryelski Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:54:59pm |
re: #16 Charleston Chew
And yes, it's "business" in quotation marks because people only buy from kids to be nice and support them so it's basically socialism.
small point: it's charity, not socialism.
but, yes, carry on.
| 33 |
gwangung Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:55:15pm |
By the way, there's a close relationship between the ideas of Adam Smith and Chalres Darwin, which Darwin acknowledged. And Darwin and Smith very much worked with ideas of systems. Survival, reproductive success and capitalism do not make sense except in terms of systems of acts and agents.
| 34 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:55:23pm |
re: #21 BryanS
Oh, what utter bullshit.
Anyone who can actually put two sentences together and make logical sense out of them can read the entire speech and see that he expressed appreciation for individual initiative, but made the indisputable point that most businesses rely on an infrastructure created by other people to thrive and grow.
I don't know why I even bothered to spell out those obvious facts yet again, when I already know that right wingers aren't going to let go of this stupid fake point.
But you should know that it's pretty damned obvious what you're doing, to most people with more than one functioning brain cell.
| 35 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:55:30pm |
re: #31 Decatur Deb
That is backed by a lot of Silicon Valley libertarian money. They also plan to exploit the mainland parasitically by commuting from outside the territorial waters.
God, I've commented here before about the "interesting" crossover between IT expertise and glibertarianism.
It's a heady cocktail and it leads to visions of grandeur on the open waves.
| 36 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:55:36pm |
re: #25 gwangung
That's a simple minded reading. Most businessmen think its their own talents that make them succeed. That is correct. They also think there is a certain amount of luck involved, which their acumen took advantage of.
Systems, my good man, systems. You must make e entire system work and not get mono focused not one part.
That is the liberal argument--it takes a village, etc. But the conservative argument is that the individual is and should be the primary controller of their own success. I know this looks like a bad argument to liberals, but this line of attack is going to keep going on and will eventually erode the President's standing precisely because it it not where the middle is either.
| 37 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:56:01pm |
re: #21 BryanS
The point was pretty clear in the Obama campaign speech that he was making a traditional left argument for increasing taxes. He goes out of his way to say that just because you work hard, were smart about how you ran your business, that those qualities are not the reason for your success. It frames the businessman as just lucky and does not deserve the benefits of their hard work--others who did not have this 'luck' need your earnings because they are everyone's earnings. That is not a winning political message except to those firmly on the left.
The real substance of the Obama campaign blurb that lead to the 'you didn't build that' brouhaha is the reason this issue will not be dropped by the GOP. 'you didn't build that' may not have had the precise meaning in the Obama speech that it has been characterized in attack ads. But the phrase 'out of context' summarizes the full context and content of his speech.
i guess "conservatives" believe that life is fair and that there's a one to one correspondence between how hard you work/how smart you are and how much money/"success" you have
this makes it all pretty easy, then, to rank us all as to how hard working and smart and virtuous we are, merely by totaling up our financial net worth
after all, isn't american society just a competition of all against all, where the only way for us to move forward as a society is a brutal competition that weeds out the weak and breeds tougher citizens?
| 38 |
gwangung Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:56:04pm |
re: #28 BryanS
The bolded part--the attacks on Obama are intended to attack precisely this message, that the success of the business is because the government was critical to making the business successful. Government doesn't do anything without the taxes paid for by successful businesses and the payroll income generated by those businesses.
this is, or course, totally incorrect.
There is, at the very least, adjudication.
| 39 |
TedStriker Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:56:10pm |
re: #19 iossarian
This. The whole "Going Galt" idea has been around for ages now and as crowded as the earth is there are still places around that are relatively uninhabited.
So why haven't any of these supermen tried it?
Because there's no profit in it.
| 40 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:56:40pm |
re: #36 BryanS
That is the liberal argument--it takes a village, etc.
No, that's reality. In reality, if you want to do anything cool-- anything beyond, like, flint-knapping or subsistence farming-- you need a society, with laws and courts and roads and police and water standards and stuff.
| 41 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:57:03pm |
re: #36 BryanS
Saying it over and over again does not make it true.
The UK just slashed its social safety net and handed the money to "job creators" via upper-income tax cuts. Now they're back in recession.
Explain that.
| 42 |
andres Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:57:10pm |
re: #36 BryanS
That is the liberal argument--it takes a village, etc. But the conservative argument is that the individual is and should be the primary controller of their own success. I know this looks like a bad argument to liberals, but this line of attack is going to keep going on and will eventually erode the President's standing precisely because it it not where the middle is either.
Quick question: If what you are saying is true, explain Somalia.
| 43 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:57:16pm |
re: #28 BryanS
The bolded part--the attacks on Obama are intended to attack precisely this message, that the success of the business is because the government was critical to making the business successful. Government doesn't do anything without the taxes paid for by successful businesses and the payroll income generated by those businesses.
And successful businesses don't require infrastructure, right? Or educated workers?
| 44 |
gwangung Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:57:42pm |
re: #36 BryanS
That is the liberal argument--it takes a village, etc. But the conservative argument is that the individual is and should be the primary controller of their own success. I know this looks like a bad argument to liberals, but this line of attack is going to keep going on and will eventually erode the President's standing precisely because it it not where the middle is either.
No, sir..this is essentially a CAPITALIST argument. Goes all the wayback to Adam Smith.
| 45 |
Decatur Deb Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:58:07pm |
| 46 |
jaunte Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:58:41pm |
If the customers can't afford to buy, your business fails. That's not 'it takes a village' sentimentality, it's just fact.
| 47 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:58:47pm |
re: #36 BryanS
That is the liberal argument--it takes a village, etc. But the conservative argument is that the individual is and should be the primary controller of their own success. I know this looks like a bad argument to liberals, but this line of attack is going to keep going on and will eventually erode the President's standing precisely because it it not where the middle is either.
i look forward to your description of how you were dumped in the wilderness when you were an infant and taught yourself how to survive by eating brambles, after which you deduced the art of reading and using excel spreadsheets purely through solitary metal exertion
| 48 |
Decatur Deb Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:59:53pm |
re: #35 iossarian
God, I've commented here before about the "interesting" crossover between IT expertise and glibertarianism.
It's a heady cocktail and it leads to visions of grandeur on the open waves.
Religious support to be provided by Sea Org jump jets.
| 49 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:00:07pm |
re: #37 engineer cat
after all, isn't american society just a competition of all against all, where the only way for us to move forward as a society is a brutal competition that weeds out the weak and breeds tougher citizens?
The dirty secret of higher education is that if we went to "merit-only" admissions, the Ivy League schools would be minority white within a couple of years due to dominance of the American Asian population in standardized testing.
| 50 |
jaunte Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:00:19pm |
Flashback: GOP Claim $50 Billion For Infrastructure Too Pricey, While Pushing $800 Billion Tax Cut For Rich: #p2 #p21 j.mp/K5oimF
— Casey (@pari_passu) July 27, 2012
| 51 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:00:44pm |
re: #34 Charles Johnson
Oh, what utter bullshit.
Anyone who can actually put two sentences together and make logical sense out of them can read the entire speech and see that he expressed appreciation for individual initiative, but made the indisputable point that most businesses rely on an infrastructure created by other people to thrive and grow.
I don't know why I even bothered to spell out those obvious facts yet again, when I already know that right wingers aren't going to let go of this stupid fake point.
But you should know that it's pretty damned obvious what you're doing, to most people with more than one functioning brain cell.
It's 'obvious', perhaps to you and others who agree with you. I obviously don't agree.
What I'm doing is describing my and the conservative critique of Obama's mindset. It's not obvious to me what you think I'm doing if you think there is something more than just that.
| 52 |
Vicious Babushka Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:02:10pm |
re: #36 BryanS
That is the liberal argument--it takes a village, etc. But the conservative argument is that the individual is and should be the primary controller of their own success. I know this looks like a bad argument to liberals, but this line of attack is going to keep going on and will eventually erode the President's standing precisely because it it not where the middle is either.
Did the truck driver build the truck he is driving, out of tin cans and spare parts of other trucks? And what about the interstate highways he drives on? AND THE TEAMSTERS!1!
Did the auto mechanic build that entire car with his own hands? How would he even know how to fix it if he didn't have the Ford Hotline or the GM (or Chrysler, or Honda, etc.) engineering support group to back him up? AND THE UAW!
Those construction workers didn't build that high rise all by themselves, they need foremen, engineers, electricians, architects, city planners, plumbers, welders, safety inspectors, painters, interior decorators, accountants, etc. AND BUILDING TRADES UNIONS!
| 53 |
andres Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:02:12pm |
re: #51 BryanS
It's 'obvious', perhaps to you and others who agree with you. I obviously don't agree.
What I'm doing is describing my and the conservative critique of Obama's mindset. It's not obvious to me what you think I'm doing if you think there is something more than just that.
The very simple: Explain why Somalia is such an economic ruin if, on paper, is the perfect Gaitian country.
| 54 |
bubba zanetti Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:02:13pm |
re: #47 engineer cat
I think a lot of these "rugged individualists" fail to recognize that trapping beaver and trying not to freeze to death pretty much sucked. I'm pretty sure our forefathers were pretty happy to get back to civilization.
| 55 |
Usually refered to as anyways Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:02:55pm |
Anyone else having difficulties with streaming this video and Colbert's video.
I'm having to what for it to cache before I play it?
| 56 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:03:03pm |
| 57 |
bubba zanetti Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:03:10pm |
re: #51 BryanS
I hope you're not using a socialist GPS to navigate our socialist highways.
| 58 |
OhNoZombies! Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:03:19pm |
re: #47 engineer cat
I've actually read the comments of people who believe this.
Can you guess where?
Vdare.
| 59 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:03:36pm |
re: #51 BryanS
Seriously, what about the statement that it takes a stable society, with courts, cops, roads, etc. for businesses to thrive is in any way false?
| 60 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:04:04pm |
re: #37 engineer cat
i guess "conservatives" believe that life is fair and that there's a one to one correspondence between how hard you work/how smart you are and how much money/"success" you have
this makes it all pretty easy, then, to rank us all as to how hard working and smart and virtuous we are, merely by totaling up our financial net worth
after all, isn't american society just a competition of all against all, where the only way for us to move forward as a society is a brutal competition that weeds out the weak and breeds tougher citizens?
In large part, yes. Many conservatives today will agree to a safety net to help people from hitting complete bottom, with the goal that they are helped up enough so they can go back to running their own affairs.
That was why welfare reform was so popular. Before this 'gaffe' Romney was getting ready to attack Obama for gutting welfare reform, but the gaffe was too much of an opportunity to pass up. If this 'you didn't build that' thing ever dies down, you can expect the attack on Obama over welfare to start up soon after.
| 61 |
gwangung Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:04:18pm |
re: #46 jaunte
If the customers can't afford to buy, your business fails. That's not 'it takes a village' sentimentality, it's just fact.
If we're talking about macroeconomics, we're talking about systems. And someone has to maintain the systems and rules. Moreover, businesses are focused. They do not do everyone. They rely on other businesses to do their work. There are multiple independent actors involved and while individual
Effort counts, it is no and cannot be the sole factor.
| 62 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:05:36pm |
re: #60 BryanS
In large part, yes. Many conservatives today will agree to a safety net to help people from hitting complete bottom, with the goal that they are helped up enough so they can go back to running their own affairs.
That was why welfare reform was so popular. Before this 'gaffe' Romney was getting ready to attack Obama for gutting welfare reform, but the gaffe was too much of an opportunity to pass up. If this 'you didn't build that' thing ever dies down, you can expect the attack on Obama over welfare to start up soon after.
"Gutting" reform? How exactly is allowing states the control to set their own standards, their own requirements, a bad thing? I thought men like Romney supported the idea of states rights, of 50 laboratories of innovation?
| 63 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:06:49pm |
re: #60 BryanS
In large part, yes. Many conservatives today will agree to a safety net to help people from hitting complete bottom, with the goal that they are helped up enough so they can go back to running their own affairs.
That was why welfare reform was so popular. Before this 'gaffe' Romney was getting ready to attack Obama for gutting welfare reform, but the gaffe was too much of an opportunity to pass up. If this 'you didn't build that' thing ever dies down, you can expect the attack on Obama over welfare to start up soon after.
so my question then is, either you must be a millionaire or else what the hell is wrong with you?
| 64 |
gwangung Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:07:15pm |
re: #51 BryanS
It's 'obvious', perhaps to you and others who agree with you. I obviously don't agree.
What I'm doing is describing my and the conservative critique of Obama's mindset. It's not obvious to me what you think I'm doing if you think there is something more than just that.
It is an ignorant critique that ignores the very bases of the concepts so called conservatives profess to revere.
This suggests a stone dead ignorance of your own founding principals. Hope this is not thecase. Hopefully, you're not just spouting dogma in a ritualistic manner.
| 65 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:07:32pm |
re: #49 iossarian
The dirty secret of higher education is that if we went to "merit-only" admissions, the Ivy League schools would be minority white within a couple of years due to dominance of the American Asian population in standardized testing.
That's true. And it is wrong that Asians are discriminated against in the name of diversity. I say this as a white male: White people should not have to have lower admission requirements just to ensure that there aren't too many Asians in college; men should not have favored admission simply because they are now the minority of applicants and graduates in higher ed.
| 67 |
goddamnedfrank Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:08:53pm |
re: #28 BryanS
The bolded part--the attacks on Obama are intended to attack precisely this message, that the success of the business is because the government was critical to making the business successful. Government doesn't do anything without the taxes paid for by successful businesses and the payroll income generated by those businesses.
Oh bullshit, it's a completely symbiotic relationship. Successful business needs an educated workforce and workers who also pay their own income taxes. Customers also pay taxes, business can't survives without them either. They need stability, without a court system, police and lawful dispute resolution system businessmen have to buy bodyguards and risk being shot like in Russia during the 90's transition. Successful business need access to well regulated energy and commodities markets, no system thrives long term if theft goes unchecked and unpunished. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
| 68 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:09:14pm |
re: #53 andres
The very simple: Explain why Somalia is such an economic ruin if, on paper, is the perfect Gaitian country.
It isn't. You have a bad premise. There is no rule of law, for one. Conservatives are not for anarchy, so Somalia would be a bad counterpoint to bring up.
| 69 |
b_sharp Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:09:36pm |
re: #9 BryanS
The full context is pretty bad too. As best as I can till, this is a pretty complete, uncropped version of the comments being put out by the Romney campaign in an internet ad:
[Embedded content]
Have you read the entire speech? The context forms throughout the speech, not just in those few lines.
| 70 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:09:49pm |
See what happens when we refuse to understand each other?
| 71 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:10:28pm |
re: #62 Targetpractice
"Gutting" reform? How exactly is allowing states the control to set their own standards, their own requirements, a bad thing? I thought men like Romney supported the idea of states rights, of 50 laboratories of innovation?
Removing the work requirement. That guts the reform.
| 72 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:10:30pm |
re: #65 BryanS
That's true. And it is wrong that Asians are discriminated against in the name of diversity. I say this as a white male: White people should not have to have lower admission requirements just to ensure that there aren't too many Asians in college; men should not have favored admission simply because they are now the minority of applicants and graduates in higher ed.
Haha. So you don't give a shit about our Anglo-Saxon, Judeo-Christian heritage?
What kind of a conservative are you anyway?
| 73 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:11:23pm |
re: #68 BryanS
It isn't. You have a bad premise. There is no rule of law, for one. Conservatives are not for anarchy, so Somalia would be a bad counterpoint to bring up.
How can you have a lack of government regulation without anarchy?
| 74 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:11:54pm |
re: #37 engineer cat
i guess "conservatives" believe that life is fair and that there's a one to one correspondence between how hard you work/how smart you are and how much money/"success" you have
re: #60 BryanS
In large part, yes
i must say, now you are really starting to piss me off. as an engineer, i make a pretty healthy living, but at no time am i tempted to rank my worth as a person, relative to all the other people i interact with every day, according to the heft of my paycheck. like any normal person, i know perfectly well that life is not fair, and i can easily count the unearned benefits, as well as the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, that have conditioned my lot in life. and personally i count myself lucky beyond what i could possibly deserve
| 75 |
Vicious Babushka Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:12:19pm |
| 76 |
Usually refered to as anyways Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:12:40pm |
re: #70 Killgore Trout
See what happens when we refuse to understand each other?
/ What are you saying?
| 77 |
jaunte Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:13:08pm |
Galt was a not well-thought-out work of fiction.
| 78 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:13:52pm |
re: #70 Killgore Trout
See what happens when we refuse to understand each other?
We don't have to understand jack shit. We just have to be polite and mind our own business.
| 79 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:14:00pm |
re: #63 engineer cat
so my question then is, either you must be a millionaire or else what the hell is wrong with you?
I'm not a millionaire, but nothing is wrong with me. A common left tactic is to castigate people who disagree with them as useful idiots who vote against their own interests. It is not in my interest to see businesses have a harder time getting started. It is not in my interest to see government take a larger share of the economy than it already has. If we actually collected the taxes needed to pay for the spending levels we currently have, we could expect a serious slowdown.
| 80 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:14:18pm |
re: #71 BryanS
Removing the work requirement. That guts the reform.
Except it wasn't removed, a waiver system was set up instead that allows states to address the requirement in a manner that works for their needs, with the understanding that waivers can be denied if states do not address the issue to HHS' satisfaction.
| 81 |
TedStriker Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:15:13pm |
re: #80 Targetpractice
Except it wasn't removed, a waiver system was set up instead that allows states to address the requirement in a manner that works for their needs, with the understanding that waivers can be denied if states do not address the issue to HHS' satisfaction.
But that doesn't fit the RWNJs' narrative...
| 82 |
goddamnedfrank Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:15:14pm |
re: #51 BryanS
What I'm doing is describing my and the conservative critique of Obama's mindset.
You're being deliberately obtuse, viewing the market from the supply side only and completely ignoring the factors that feed into and determine demand.
| 83 |
goddamnedfrank Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:17:35pm |
re: #80 Targetpractice
Except it wasn't removed, a waiver system was set up instead that allows states to address the requirement in a manner that works for their needs, with the understanding that waivers can be denied if states do not address the issue to HHS' satisfaction.
We were told how hard Ann Romney worked as a rich stay at home mom yet the Republicans wouldn't let poverty stricken mothers count their mothering duties as work equivalent for welfare.
| 84 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:18:09pm |
re: #79 BryanS
Geez. The last time we "collected taxes to pay for spending" was under Clinton.
Now I say that not to extol Clinton but to point out that a) voting Republican is not a good way to balance the budget, and b) maintaining a surplus in a national budget is neither a goal nor a requirement. What matters is how you're directing people's work efforts. Do it too much and you get inefficiency. Do it too little and you get Somalia.
| 85 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:18:23pm |
re: #83 goddamnedfrank
We were told how hard Ann Romney worked as a rich stay at home mom yet the Republicans wouldn't let poverty stricken mothers count their mothering duties as work equivalent for welfare.
Which is funny, as they were all for it when it was their idea. But as soon as Obama puts it into practice, then it's the end of civilization as we know it.
| 86 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:18:29pm |
re: #79 BryanS
I'm not a millionaire, but nothing is wrong with me. A common left tactic is to castigate people who disagree with them as useful idiots who vote against their own interests. It is not in my interest to see businesses have a harder time getting started. It is not in my interest to see government take a larger share of the economy than it already has. If we actually collected the taxes needed to pay for the spending levels we currently have, we could expect a serious slowdown.
um, no - my point was this. if you believe, as you said, that this is true:
life is fair and that there's a one to one correspondence between how hard you work/how smart you are and how much money/"success" you have
then if you are not among the top earners of this country, you must be dumber and lazier than them
are you?
| 87 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:18:52pm |
re: #67 goddamnedfrank
Oh bullshit, it's a completely symbiotic relationship. Successful business needs and educated workforce and workers who also pay their own income taxes. Customers also pay taxes, business can't survives without them either. They need stability, without a court system, police and lawful dispute resolution system businessmen have to buy bodyguards and risk being shot like in Russia during the 90's transition. Successful business need access to well regulated energy and commodities markets, no system thrives long term if theft goes unchecked and unpunished. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
You cite things like the rule of law, but conservatives are strong supporters of the rule of law--I've not seen evidence to the contrary.
| 88 |
Vicious Babushka Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:19:01pm |
re: #79 BryanS
It is not in my interest to see government take a larger share of the economy than it already has. If we actually collected the taxes needed to pay for the spending levels we currently have, we could expect a serious slowdown.
It's also not in your interest to see bazillionaires like Mitt Romney and the Bain CEO's take a larger share of the economy than they already have. Why is allowing the super-rich to suck out more and more for their own personal enjoyment better for society than taxing those suckers for their third and fourth jet plane?
| 89 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:19:43pm |
re: #87 BryanS
You cite things like the rule of law, but conservatives are strong supporters of the rule of law--I've not seen evidence to the contrary.
They support it until the law gets in their way, then the law is at best "unnecessary" and at worst "tyrannical."
| 90 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:20:31pm |
re: #72 iossarian
Haha. So you don't give a shit about our Anglo-Saxon, Judeo-Christian heritage?
What kind of a conservative are you anyway?
Ha :) Also, I'm actually, an atheist, so I am firmly in the camp that the Judeo-Christian heritage is hogwash except to the extent that religion does influence our culture.
| 91 |
goddamnedfrank Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:21:10pm |
re: #68 BryanS
It isn't. You have a bad premise. There is no rule of law, for one. Conservatives are not for anarchy, so Somalia would be a bad counterpoint to bring up.
Conservatives want all the benefits of a functioning government and society without having to credit it for anything good that might come to them. The only reason they don't want anarchy is because without government they'd have no scapegoat for all the bad shit their ideology can't account for.
| 92 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:21:17pm |
re: #76 ozbloke
/ What are you saying?
guess I'm just entertaining myself, recognizing repeating patterns.
| 93 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:21:22pm |
re: #87 BryanS
You cite things like the rule of law, but conservatives are strong supporters of the rule of law--I've not seen evidence to the contrary.
Right, so you agree that government gets the power to set laws and rules, and we're just arguing over what the specifics of those laws and rules should be.
Which brings us back to: why is the UK back in recession, when they've done everything the right demanded for the past few years?
| 94 |
dragonath Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:22:16pm |
I stopped taking BryanS's opinions in good faith when he asserted a few months back that there's "no such thing as too many people" because scientists were wrong about the world running out of resources.
| 95 |
Dancing along the light of day Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:22:49pm |
re: #70 Killgore Trout
See what happens when we refuse to understand each other?
LOL! It's more about what happens when we TRY not to understand each other that matters, IMHO.
| 96 |
b_sharp Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:23:12pm |
re: #94 Fred Galt
I stopped taking BryanS's opinions in good faith when he asserted a few months back that there's "no such thing as too many people" because scientists were wrong about the world running out of resources.
Say what?
| 97 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:23:17pm |
re: #74 engineer cat
re: #37 engineer cat
i must say, now you are really starting to piss me off. as an engineer, i make a pretty healthy living, but at no time am i tempted to rank my worth as a person, relative to all the other people i interact with every day, according to the heft of my paycheck. like any normal person, i know perfectly well that life is not fair, and i can easily count the unearned benefits, as well as the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, that have conditioned my lot in life. and personally i count myself lucky beyond what i could possibly deserve
I am used to the fact that conservatism pisses of liberals. That's just how it goes--I live in a very liberal community so I see that all the time.
Yeah, life is not fair. I'm ok with a safety net--temporary, hand up not hand out. Everything else, your fortune and misfortunes both, are your own problem to deal with.
| 98 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:24:19pm |
re: #97 BryanS
I am used to the fact that conservatism pisses of liberals. That's just how it goes--I live in a very liberal community so I see that all the time.
Yeah, life is not fair. I'm ok with a safety net--temporary, hand up not hand out. Everything else, your fortune and misfortunes both, are your own problem to deal with.
What do you get if you have a long-term disability that prevents you from working, and no family to support you?
| 99 |
Schadenfreude 'r' Us Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:24:20pm |
...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. That is all.
| 100 |
dragonath Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:24:33pm |
re: #96 b_sharp
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
&
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 101 |
What, me worry? Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:24:49pm |
re: #79 BryanS
I'm not a millionaire, but nothing is wrong with me. A common left tactic is to castigate people who disagree with them as useful idiots who vote against their own interests. It is not in my interest to see businesses have a harder time getting started. It is not in my interest to see government take a larger share of the economy than it already has. If we actually collected the taxes needed to pay for the spending levels we currently have, we could expect a serious slowdown.
Small business, you say? Help from the government, you say?
[Link: www.businessweek.com...]
“Small businesses want things streamlined, and one of the great successes we’re having is less paperwork, faster turnaround times,” Karen Mills, head of the Small Business Administration, said in a June 26 interview with Bloomberg Businessweek. She cited SBA loan applications that the agency now acts on in 10 days and payments to federal contractors that go out in 15 days. She called the $100 billion the government spends buying goods and services from small vendors “probably the largest and most important program for small businesses across the federal government.”
Now, granted, the recession has not allowed small businesses to take off as they would have before, but that doesn't mean that the government doesn't have a hand in helping people in a positive way. There's also the JOBS Act.
[Link: www.businessweek.com...]
The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act being signed by President Obama today will mean lighter-touch regulation for relatively small companies that want to go public. The idea is that they shouldn’t be held to the same bar initially as established public companies like IBM (IBM) or Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A), because their costs of complying are, proportionally, a much bigger burden. Among other provisions, the JOBS Act gives so-called emerging growth companies up to five years to fully comply with all the accounting rules required of public companies today. Critics, including the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, warn such exemptions could eviscerate shareholder protections.
The new SBA policies were started in 2009, with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and has worked well.
[Link: strategiesforsmallbusiness.com...]
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Recovery Act”) nicely laid out beneficial provisions for small businesses and just as promised, regulations have come out by the SBA to start the ball rolling. And I’m not talking about more government promises or red tape, but bottom line capital to be infused into the coffers of deserving business owners.
Good article, btw.
| 102 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:24:58pm |
re: #75 Learned Mother of Zion
What is the "work requirement"?
The requirement to be actively engaging in looking for work, some exceptions like enrolling in full time school. Obama just announced that his admin will remove that requirement for welfare recipients. Permanent welfare class status is anathema to conservatives.
| 103 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:25:52pm |
re: #91 goddamnedfrank
Conservatives want all the benefits of a functioning government and society without having to credit it for anything good that might come to them. The only reason they don't want anarchy is because without government they'd have no scapegoat for all the bad shit their ideology can't account for.
I'd argue the reason they don't want anarchy is because it's impossible to rule the serfs when there's no laws to charge them with violating or prisons to house them in. They are all for the rule of law, so long as it serves them.
| 104 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:26:02pm |
re: #97 BryanS
Yeah, life is not fair. I'm ok with a safety net--temporary, hand up not hand out. Everything else, your fortune and misfortunes both, are your own problem to deal with.
What country are you talking about? It's not the US. We do things like granting disability payments to those who are too crippled to work, because we're not assholes who think people who are incapable of supporting themselves should have to die in the gutter.
Are you really against disability?
| 105 |
b_sharp Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:27:19pm |
re: #97 BryanS
I am used to the fact that conservatism pisses of liberals. That's just how it goes--I live in a very liberal community so I see that all the time.
Yeah, life is not fair. I'm ok with a safety net--temporary, hand up not hand out. Everything else, your fortune and misfortunes both, are your own problem to deal with.
Actually it's the conservative inability to deal with and live in reality, combined with their penchant for twisting context.
| 106 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:27:21pm |
re: #102 BryanS
The requirement to be actively engaging in looking for work, some exceptions like enrolling in full time school. Obama just announced that his admin will remove that requirement for welfare recipients. Permanent welfare class status is anathema to conservatives.
Of course it is, hard to rule serfs when they're not yoked to their jobs.
| 107 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:27:35pm |
re: #102 BryanS
The requirement to be actively engaging in looking for work, some exceptions like enrolling in full time school. Obama just announced that his admin will remove that requirement for welfare recipients. Permanent welfare class status is anathema to conservatives.
Does child-rearing count as work?
| 108 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:28:59pm |
re: #84 iossarian
Geez. The last time we "collected taxes to pay for spending" was under Clinton.
Now I say that not to extol Clinton but to point out that a) voting Republican is not a good way to balance the budget, and b) maintaining a surplus in a national budget is neither a goal nor a requirement. What matters is how you're directing people's work efforts. Do it too much and you get inefficiency. Do it too little and you get Somalia.
Don't disagree with you there. Clinton was a decent president. I didn't agree with some of his policies, of course. It also helped that he had a GOP congress. Frankly, a GOP House AND Senate would have been useful for Obama to have where Obama could bat down excesses. When it was all GOP under Bush, they had themselves a spending circle jerk. But Dem House/Senate with GOP President doesn't work well for spending.
| 109 |
What, me worry? Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:29:53pm |
I also have to say that the Small Business Administration is an awesome agency. Years ago, I was looking to open a book store. They also had special services for women starting new business. I took a few classes from them (that I paid for, but were inexpensive) and they also went with me to help secure a loan. I ended up not opening the business, but I was thrilled with the SBA.
| 110 |
Vicious Babushka Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:30:09pm |
re: #97 BryanS
I am used to the fact that conservatism pisses of liberals. That's just how it goes--I live in a very liberal community so I see that all the time.
Yeah, life is not fair. I'm ok with a safety net--temporary, hand up not hand out. Everything else, your fortune and misfortunes both, are your own problem to deal with.
It's a safety net not a hammock!1!ty
Seriously, does society really need more homeless, despairing, desperate people just so the Mitt Romneys of the world can buy another dancing horse instead of paying a little more in tax?
| 111 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:32:52pm |
re: #95 Dancing along the light of day
LOL! It's more about what happens when we TRY not to understand each other that matters, IMHO.
I've found that it takes nothing away from me to understand somebody else. There is no danger.
| 112 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:32:57pm |
re: #108 BryanS
Don't disagree with you there. Clinton was a decent president. I didn't agree with some of his policies, of course. It also helped that he had a GOP congress. Frankly, a GOP House AND Senate would have been useful for Obama to have where Obama could bat down excesses. When it was all GOP under Bush, they had themselves a spending circle jerk. But Dem House/Senate with GOP President doesn't work well for spending.
This doesn't sound like a particularly rigorous analysis of political science and the balance of power to me.
I'd rather hear your thoughts on how we should deal with long-term disability and whether child-rearing counts as work.
| 113 |
Vicious Babushka Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:33:22pm |
re: #102 BryanS
The requirement to be actively engaging in looking for work, some exceptions like enrolling in full time school. Obama just announced that his admin will remove that requirement for welfare recipients. Permanent welfare class status is anathema to conservatives.
You do realize that people get laid off from their jobs and can spend YEARS looking for work, taking temp jobs, taking minimum pay jobs that still keep them at the poverty level? That nobody WANTS to live on the pittance welfare pays, that everyone WANTS to be employed but CAN'T FUCKING FIND DECENT WORK.
Jesus freaking christ on a skateboard.
| 114 |
jaunte Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:33:38pm |
Disabled veterans should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
| 115 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:33:42pm |
re: #97 BryanS
I am used to the fact that conservatism pisses of liberals. That's just how it goes--I live in a very liberal community so I see that all the time.
Yeah, life is not fair. I'm ok with a safety net--temporary, hand up not hand out. Everything else, your fortune and misfortunes both, are your own problem to deal with.
okay, now that you admit that perhaps life is not, after all, always fair, let;s go back to your utter misrepresentation of what the president said:
The point was pretty clear in the Obama campaign speech that he was making a traditional left argument for increasing taxes.
no
He goes out of his way to say that just because you work hard, were smart about how you ran your business, that those qualities are not the reason for your success.
no, he didn't. he said that all businesses depend on the infrastructure build by the whole society
It frames the businessman as just lucky and does not deserve the benefits of their hard work--others who did not have this 'luck' need your earnings because they are everyone's earnings
no, it doesn't
is that clear enough?
| 116 |
Interesting Times Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:33:56pm |
re: #108 BryanS
Oh hai. Guess which founding father thinks you're full of crap? :)
The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.
All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
| 117 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:35:06pm |
re: #111 Killgore Trout
I've found that it takes nothing away from me to understand somebody else. There is no danger.
I don't think there's any misunderstanding going on. It's perfectly possible to understand that people have certain economic and political views, even when those views don't lead to particularly good outcomes.
| 118 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:35:52pm |
re: #86 engineer cat
um, no - my point was this. if you believe, as you said, that this is true:
then if you are not among the top earners of this country, you must be dumber and lazier than them
are you?
Guess I'm just one of those 'useful idiots' who thinks that by working hard, I can get ahead. So far, it is working out that way. I come from the lower end of middle class. I'd put myself at significantly better off than my parents, with real prospects that I could one day be wealthy. I'm neither dumb nor lazy. I paid for my own college education by myself, saving all the money I earned since I was legally able to work, working full time in summers and nearly so in college. I excelled in my science and math majors because I worked then--and still do--almost all the time.
| 119 |
jaunte Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:36:01pm |
re: #117 iossarian
Disagreement is not necessarily misunderstanding.
| 120 |
Decatur Deb Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:36:07pm |
re: #114 jaunte
Disabled veterans should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
If they have straps.
If they have boots.
If they have legs.
| 121 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:37:29pm |
re: #118 BryanS
Guess I'm just one of those 'useful idiots' who thinks that by working hard, I can get ahead. So far, it is working out that way. I come from the lower end of middle class. I'd put myself at significantly better off than my parents, with real prospects that I could one day be wealthy. I'm neither dumb nor lazy. I paid for my own college education by myself, saving all the money I earned since I was legally able to work, working full time in summers and nearly so in college. I excelled in my science and math majors because I worked then--and still do--almost all the time.
So you're one major illness away from bankruptcy.
Congratulations on your achievements to date.
| 122 |
jaunte Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:37:52pm |
re: #120 Decatur Deb
One of my sons-in-law (Army vet) is completely disabled, and will get the princely sum of $1000 a month to support his family, as long as he doesn't try to work.
| 123 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:38:01pm |
re: #117 iossarian
I don't think there's any misunderstanding going on. It's perfectly possible to understand that people have certain economic and political views, even when those views don't lead to particularly good outcomes.
Does he weigh less than a duck? We might have a problem.
| 124 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:38:23pm |
re: #93 iossarian
Right, so you agree that government gets the power to set laws and rules, and we're just arguing over what the specifics of those laws and rules should be.
Which brings us back to: why is the UK back in recession, when they've done everything the right demanded for the past few years?
Bolded part--no. The people get to set laws and rules. UK is in recession because they overspent. Correcting that is painful--just ask the Lithuanians who didn't have access to markets to spend their way out of their problems, but now are seeing healthy economic growth again.
| 125 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:39:10pm |
re: #118 BryanS
Guess I'm just one of those 'useful idiots' who thinks that by working hard, I can get ahead. So far, it is working out that way. I come from the lower end of middle class. I'd put myself at significantly better off than my parents, with real prospects that I could one day be wealthy. I'm neither dumb nor lazy. I paid for my own college education by myself, saving all the money I earned since I was legally able to work, working full time in summers and nearly so in college. I excelled in my science and math majors because I worked then--and still do--almost all the time.
"I paid for my own college education by myself, saving all the money I earned since I was legally able to work, working full time in summers and nearly so in college."
How old were you when you started college, how old were you "legally able to work" and what job did you do during your summers, and how much did college cost you per year?
Sorry but that math does not add up in my head and would like you to fill in the variables for me.
| 126 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:39:41pm |
re: #111 Killgore Trout
I've found that it takes nothing away from me to understand somebody else. There is no danger.
How come you don't do it very often, then?
| 127 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:41:37pm |
re: #98 iossarian
What do you get if you have a long-term disability that prevents you from working, and no family to support you?
Disability insurance. It's actually rather cheap.
| 128 |
b_sharp Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:41:47pm |
re: #118 BryanS
Guess I'm just one of those 'useful idiots' who thinks that by working hard, I can get ahead.
So far, it is working out that way. I come from the lower end of middle class. I'd put myself at significantly better off than my parents, with real prospects that I could one day be wealthy. I'm neither dumb nor lazy. I paid for my own college education by myself, saving all the money I earned since I was legally able to work, working full time in summers and nearly so in college. I excelled in my science and math majors because I worked then--and still do--almost all the time.
Good for you, because that's exactly what Obama said in that speech. He also said that the environment where you can succeed like that was built, not by one person, but by the community.
| 129 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:41:52pm |
re: #124 BryanS
UK is in recession because they overspent.
How does government overspending cause a recession, please?
Isn't the UK in recession for the same reason the rest of the world has been-- because of the reverberations of the banking crisis? I mean, if anything, it's demonstrable that their austerity is causing a double-dip recession right now, so that'd be the opposite of spending.
And can you please clarify whether, since you think that everyone's fortune is their own, you're against disability payments?
| 130 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:42:13pm |
re: #127 BryanS
Disability insurance. It's actually rather cheap.
And if you don't have disability insurance when you get injured?
| 131 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:42:40pm |
re: #130 Obdicut
And if you don't have disability insurance when you get injured?
My guess is something to the effect of "Tough shit, your problem, not mine."
| 132 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:43:14pm |
re: #125 jamesfirecat
"I paid for my own college education by myself, saving all the money I earned since I was legally able to work, working full time in summers and nearly so in college."
How old were you when you started college, how old were you "legally able to work" and what job did you do during your summers, and how much did college cost you per year?
Sorry but that math does not add up in my head and would like you to fill in the variables for me.
You can do it in states that still subsidize higher education. Florida was one until quite recently. North Carolina to some extent still does. There are others.
It's quite funny to me that a lot of Southern states still provide cheap state-supported higher ed, though of course they do so mostly via incentives that are targeted at the middle class. Oddly you don't hear those staunch conservatives railing against state involvement in their college successes.
| 133 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:46:38pm |
re: #101 What, me worry?
Some of the tax breaks have been helpful--in particular being able to expense capital items in the year you buy them up to a couple hundred thousand. Of course, the temporary reprieve is helpful only to the extent that it is reducing the tax burden. For my business, It has allowed me to spend money on equipment that has allowed us to grow without borrowing money.
But think of what the 'normal' system was--if say my business had a net of $200k, and I spent that same $200k on equipment for business expansion, I would only be able to expense, depending on the type of equipment, say 10% or $20k. So I'd still owe taxes on $180k--which adds up to when all is said and done pretty close to half of that going to taxes. So before this temporary break, I could only afford to spend half of my profits to grow my own business because the other half went to taxes.
| 134 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:48:33pm |
re: #118 BryanS
Guess I'm just one of those 'useful idiots' who thinks that by working hard, I can get ahead. So far, it is working out that way. I come from the lower end of middle class. I'd put myself at significantly better off than my parents, with real prospects that I could one day be wealthy. I'm neither dumb nor lazy. I paid for my own college education by myself, saving all the money I earned since I was legally able to work, working full time in summers and nearly so in college. I excelled in my science and math majors because I worked then--and still do--almost all the time.
well, now that you have retreated from the position that you held earlier, you have ended up taking exactly the position that the president was taking in this speech of his which you contrive to misunderstand so much:
that plenty of people work hard, that plenty of people are smart, yet just being smart and working hard doesn't automatically make you rich
| 135 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:49:25pm |
re: #113 Learned Mother of Zion
You do realize that people get laid off from their jobs and can spend YEARS looking for work, taking temp jobs, taking minimum pay jobs that still keep them at the poverty level? That nobody WANTS to live on the pittance welfare pays, that everyone WANTS to be employed but CAN'T FUCKING FIND DECENT WORK.
Jesus freaking christ on a skateboard.
It's just not true, unfortunately. When they work requirement was put in place for welfare reform enacted by Clinton/GOP congress, welfare roles dropped precipitously. Agreed, though, that most people do not want to live on welfare permanently.
| 136 |
Interesting Times Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:49:26pm |
re: #124 BryanS
Bolded part--no. The people get to set laws and rules.
What part of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" don't you understand?
Republicans have defined "government" as a monolithic, non-living entity that needs to be slayed like a dragon that is destroying our country with its fiery breath and gigantic talons...But if people stop seeing "the government" as a dragon, but come back to recognizing it for what it is—US—it becomes harder and harder for the Republican narrative to be supported. People don't want to see us destroyed!
...
Government is us. So when Republicans say they want to choke government and make it small enough to drown in a bathtub, they mean they want to "choke" and "drown" us ... you and me; we, the people.Government is us. So when Republican leaders get on television and attack the government, they're attacking us. They're telling us our services aren't wanted or needed to build and maintain this country's infrastructure, operate 911 switchboards, code the military's computers, represent defendants who cannot afford an attorney, lay pipe that takes sewage away from our homes, drive city buses, nurse our returning veterans at VA hospitals, process small business loan applications, or tens of thousands of other jobs we do that keep this country running, prosperous, and safe.
| 137 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:50:17pm |
re: #136 Interesting Times
double upding for that one!
| 138 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:51:16pm |
re: #133 BryanS
But think of what the 'normal' system was--if say my business had a net of $200k, and I spent that same $200k on equipment for business expansion, I would only be able to expense, depending on the type of equipment, say 10% or $20k. So I'd still owe taxes on $180k--which adds up to when all is said and done pretty close to half of that going to taxes. So before this temporary break, I could only afford to spend half of my profits to grow my own business because the other half went to taxes.
And you can expense the rest of the cost of the equipment via depreciation for the life of the equipment. So you gain a tax advantage next year and for years to come. Why did you leave that part out?
| 139 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:51:21pm |
re: #112 iossarian
This doesn't sound like a particularly rigorous analysis of political science and the balance of power to me.
I'd rather hear your thoughts on how we should deal with long-term disability and whether child-rearing counts as work.
Well, I am one person responding to many :) Disability insurance is very affordable. I believe the welfare reform did require work for mothers as well--in Wisconsin, that was handled by subsidizing child care expenses for working mothers.
| 140 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:52:08pm |
re: #139 BryanS
Again, what if the person who was injured didn't have disability insurance? I don't think most people do.
So, what then? Are you against disability payments through social security, and, if so, what should happen to those people?
| 141 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:52:50pm |
re: #140 Obdicut
Again, what if the person who was injured didn't have disability insurance? I don't think most people do.
So, what then? Are you against disability payments through social security, and, if so, what should happen to those people?
"Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?"
| 142 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:53:12pm |
re: #121 iossarian
So you're one major illness away from bankruptcy.
Congratulations on your achievements to date.
Nope...not at all. Insurance is a wonderful thing, both the products you can buy on the market and the couple years living expenses I've saved away.
| 143 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:54:04pm |
re: #139 BryanS
Well, I am one person responding to many :) Disability insurance is very affordable. I believe the welfare reform did require work for mothers as well--in Wisconsin, that was handled by subsidizing child care expenses for working mothers.
I'm not interested in how they handled things in Wisconsin, I'm interested in knowing whether you think that child-rearing counts as work, or not?
It's hard to defend your position against a lot of people at once, I realize that.
But, if you get the chance, what if you can't afford disability insurance, or that insurance runs out but you're unable to go back to work (and you can refer to Barbara Ehrenreich's work on whether you can afford anything beyond a shack and crappy food on the minimum wage).
| 144 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:54:52pm |
re: #142 BryanS
Nope...not at all. Insurance is a wonderful thing, both the products you can buy on the market and the couple years living expenses I've saved away.
As I just noted (before I read this comment of yours) it is impossible to pay for insurance on minimum wage. What should those people do?
| 145 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:57:22pm |
re: #125 jamesfirecat
"I paid for my own college education by myself, saving all the money I earned since I was legally able to work, working full time in summers and nearly so in college."
How old were you when you started college, how old were you "legally able to work" and what job did you do during your summers, and how much did college cost you per year?
Sorry but that math does not add up in my head and would like you to fill in the variables for me.
Started work at 12 as a caddy--about the only thing a 12yr old could legally do. Worked as a caddy, then fast food, then fast food manager, then catering manager. Also worked as resident assistant to pay for living expenses while in school. Tuition was about $5k/yr. I managed by not blowing my money on alcohol and partying in school and being very frugal.
| 146 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:58:05pm |
re: #133 BryanS
Some of the tax breaks have been helpful--in particular being able to expense capital items in the year you buy them up to a couple hundred thousand. Of course, the temporary reprieve is helpful only to the extent that it is reducing the tax burden. For my business, It has allowed me to spend money on equipment that has allowed us to grow without borrowing money.
But think of what the 'normal' system was--if say my business had a net of $200k, and I spent that same $200k on equipment for business expansion, I would only be able to expense, depending on the type of equipment, say 10% or $20k. So I'd still owe taxes on $180k--which adds up to when all is said and done pretty close to half of that going to taxes. So before this temporary break, I could only afford to spend half of my profits to grow my own business because the other half went to taxes.
You're claiming your business is being taxed at a 50% rate?
| 147 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:59:04pm |
re: #145 BryanS
Started work at 12 as a caddy--about the only thing a 12yr old could legally do. Worked as a caddy, then fast food, then fast food manager, then catering manager. Also worked as resident assistant to pay for living expenses while in school. Tuition was about $5k/yr. I managed by not blowing my money on alcohol and partying in school and being very frugal.
$5K a year - was that a public institution, or a private one? And/or did you get any financial aid?
Not saying you shouldn't take advantage of whatever's available, but $5K doesn't buy you much on the private market.
| 148 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:59:13pm |
re: #145 BryanS
Tuition is no longer $5K a year.
Obama's point was that you need a society, laws, infrastructure to run a successful business.
When you talked about capital expenditure, you left out the tax advantage from depreciation, making it seem like that initial advantage is all you get.
You are avoiding the question of what to do with people who are too injured to work.
Could you address it, please?
| 149 |
b_sharp Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:00:13pm |
re: #145 BryanS
Started work at 12 as a caddy--about the only thing a 12yr old could legally do. Worked as a caddy, then fast food, then fast food manager, then catering manager. Also worked as resident assistant to pay for living expenses while in school. Tuition was about $5k/yr. I managed by not blowing my money on alcohol and partying in school and being very frugal.
How old were you when you left your parent's house?
| 150 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:00:56pm |
re: #138 Obdicut
And you can expense the rest of the cost of the equipment via depreciation for the life of the equipment. So you gain a tax advantage next year. Why did you leave that part out?
That's not a tax advantage at all--it is perhaps if you are done growing and you want to spread out the expenditure in years you have none, but depreciating equipment expenses over time kills growing businesses. Literally cuts their ability to grow in half.
| 151 |
b_sharp Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:01:01pm |
re: #148 Obdicut
Tuition is no longer $5K a year.
Obama's point was that you need a society, laws, infrastructure to run a successful business.
When you talked about capital expenditure, you left out the tax advantage from depreciation, making it seem like that initial advantage is all you get.
You are avoiding the question of what to do with people who are too injured to work.
Could you address it, please?
Don't hold your breath.
| 152 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:03:15pm |
re: #140 Obdicut
Again, what if the person who was injured didn't have disability insurance? I don't think most people do.
So, what then? Are you against disability payments through social security, and, if so, what should happen to those people?
Social security is a form of disability insurance. I'm not in favor of repealing that benefit. But it's not enough to live on for sure. Just like retirement, people should plan for potential disability and loss of income.
| 153 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:04:56pm |
re: #150 BryanS
That's not a tax advantage at all
Yes, it is. You can depreciate the costs of your capital expenditures in future years. That's a tax advantage. Denying that is just bizarre.
--it is perhaps if you are done growing and you want to spread out the expenditure in years you have none,
Yeah, the natural state of a business isn't constant expansion. And if you are constantly expanding, you're spending that capital expenditure on things of value, that will last-- like a fleet of trucks, or stamping machines, or what have you. If you got a complete tax advantage in the year you bought an item that'll last for thirty years, there's be a lot more unsustainable boom businesses going on-- and a lot more scams.
but depreciating equipment expenses over time kills growing businesses. Literally cuts their ability to grow in half.
And by literally, you mean figuratively.
How does it cut it in 'half', do you figure? Wouldn't how much it affects it have to do with how much capital expenditures they have?
You are avoiding the question of what to do with people who are too injured to work.
Could you address it, please?
| 154 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:05:02pm |
re: #152 BryanS
Social security is a form of disability insurance. I'm not in favor of repealing that benefit.
Oh good! Then you're not likely to be voting for the GOP any time soon, since it's pretty clear they want to do away with it.
But it's not enough to live on for sure. Just like retirement, people should plan for potential disability and loss of income.
What do you make of the fact that minimum wage jobs do not allow you to save any meaningful amount of money, or purchase insurance (and they certainly don't provide insurance as benefits)?
| 155 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:06:33pm |
re: #152 BryanS
Social security is a form of disability insurance. I'm not in favor of repealing that benefit. But it's not enough to live on for sure. Just like retirement, people should plan for potential disability and loss of income.
What about SSI? Do you want to repeal that?
And what about the people who don't plan? What would happen to them, in your ideal world?
| 156 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:06:34pm |
re: #145 BryanS
Started work at 12 as a caddy--about the only thing a 12yr old could legally do. Worked as a caddy, then fast food, then fast food manager, then catering manager. Also worked as resident assistant to pay for living expenses while in school. Tuition was about $5k/yr. I managed by not blowing my money on alcohol and partying in school and being very frugal.
You didn't mention what year you started college without knowing that I can say nothing for certain.
But lets assume you started at 18.
5K a year = 20K total to pay.
6 years before 4 years during =10 years of work.
10 Years of work * 3 months of summer work a year * 4 weeks a month * 40 hours of work a day =4800 hours of work.
20,000 / 4,800= means that this would work as long as you were making 4.1 dollars an hour which I assume you could.
Fair enough, assuming there are still colleges out there that charge that little.
| 157 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:06:43pm |
re: #152 BryanS
Social security is a form of disability insurance. I'm not in favor of repealing that benefit. But it's not enough to live on for sure. Just like retirement, people should plan for potential disability and loss of income.
Being able to do more than plan to the next paycheck is a privileged position today. Wages have been stagnant for a couple of decades as prices have gone up. There is no money to save for that lovely plan. What is the conservative proposal for leveling the playing field to see workers paid for their increase in productivity rather than all of that money going to the top?
| 158 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:09:30pm |
re: #156 jamesfirecat
You didn't mention what year you started college without knowing that I can say nothing for certain.
But lets assume you started at 18.
5K a year = 20K total to pay.
6 years before 4 years during =10 years of work.
10 Years of work * 3 months of summer work a year * 4 weeks a month * 40 hours of work a day =4800 hours of work.
20,000 / 4,800= means that this would work as long as you were making 4.1 dollars an hour which I assume you could.
Fair enough, assuming there are still colleges out there that charge that little.
You are assuming that your family can support all your living expenses for those 10 years (including at least 4 years after you turn 18).
Not a valid assumption for a large segment of the US college-age population.
| 159 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:09:43pm |
re: #145 BryanS
Started work at 12 as a caddy--about the only thing a 12yr old could legally do. Worked as a caddy, then fast food, then fast food manager, then catering manager. Also worked as resident assistant to pay for living expenses while in school. Tuition was about $5k/yr. I managed by not blowing my money on alcohol and partying in school and being very frugal.
basically, by defending your life - and i don't disrespect your accomplishments - you are proving the president's point
| 160 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:09:51pm |
re: #156 jamesfirecat
You didn't mention what year you started college without knowing that I can say nothing for certain.
But lets assume you started at 18.
5K a year = 20K total to pay.
6 years before 4 years during =10 years of work.
10 Years of work * 3 months of summer work a year * 4 weeks a month * 40 hours of work a day =4800 hours of work.
20,000 / 4,800= means that this would work as long as you were making 4.1 dollars an hour which I assume you could.
Fair enough, assuming there are still colleges out there that charge that little.
Tuition is only one expense and not necessarily the single highest. Books, lab fees, room and board, add up to that much again and more.
| 161 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:10:09pm |
I'm actually for 0% corporate taxes, and just going after individual income, partially to stop dumb arguments like this one, and partially because no matter how good a tax environment you have, corporations will always find a way to game the system.
| 162 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:10:49pm |
re: #143 iossarian
I'm not interested in how they handled things in Wisconsin, I'm interested in knowing whether you think that child-rearing counts as work, or not?
It's hard to defend your position against a lot of people at once, I realize that.
But, if you get the chance, what if you can't afford disability insurance, or that insurance runs out but you're unable to go back to work (and you can refer to Barbara Ehrenreich's work on whether you can afford anything beyond a shack and crappy food on the minimum wage).
Disability insurance costs scale with your current income, and most policies will pay until your retirement if it ends up you are disabled that long. Insuring a minimum wag earner would probably run about $50/mo. I know people who live on minimum wage, yet very few of those people opt for disability insurance instead of paying their cable bill.
All that said, I'm not sure why the focus on disability here. Social Security taxes pay for that benefit. The current cap on income subject to social security taxes ensures that it doesn't become purely a welfare program.
| 163 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:12:50pm |
re: #146 allegro
You're claiming your business is being taxed at a 50% rate?
Business and personal taxes, yes. I'm not Apple and can't domicile my company overseas .
| 164 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:13:12pm |
| 165 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:15:18pm |
re: #163 BryanS
Business and personal taxes, yes. I'm not Apple and can't domicile my company overseas .
I'm calling bullshit.
| 166 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:15:28pm |
re: #162 BryanS
All that said, I'm not sure why the focus on disability here. Social Security taxes pay for that benefit. The current cap on income subject to social security taxes ensures that it doesn't become purely a welfare program.
Except that SSI supplements it. Thus me asking you about SSI.
The focus is on disability because it shows the logical outcome of the "it's all your own fault" system. You get some twenty-five year old kid who thinks he's immortal taking a spill on his dirtbike and royally fucking up his spine.
What should happen with him? He didn't have disability insurance. He's very unlikely to be able to find work. In your ideal world, what happens to that kid?
| 167 |
b_sharp Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:15:29pm |
re: #164 BryanS
18
So you were supported by your parents from 12 til 18 so you had opportunity to save for 4 years?
Did they give you any help after that?
| 168 |
andres Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:15:35pm |
re: #68 BryanS
It isn't. You have a bad premise. There is no rule of law, for one. Conservatives are not for anarchy, so Somalia would be a bad counterpoint to bring up.
Actually, my premise is correct. What do you think will be the effect of "Starve the Beast"?
| 169 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:16:02pm |
re: #163 BryanS
Business and personal taxes, yes. I'm not Apple and can't domicile my company overseas .
Why on earth are you adding together business and personal taxes?
| 170 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:18:47pm |
re: #156 jamesfirecat
You didn't mention what year you started college without knowing that I can say nothing for certain.
But lets assume you started at 18.
5K a year = 20K total to pay.
6 years before 4 years during =10 years of work.
10 Years of work * 3 months of summer work a year * 4 weeks a month * 40 hours of work a day =4800 hours of work.
20,000 / 4,800= means that this would work as long as you were making 4.1 dollars an hour which I assume you could.
Fair enough, assuming there are still colleges out there that charge that little.
Yes, 18. It was tight, but doable. Made more like $7-$8/hr as a manager in my summer/part time jobs by my Sr Yr. Minimum wage was $4.25, but I managed to do a bit better by working up to positions with a bit more responsibility.
These days? Not sure how that would turn out. Tuition at the school I attended is now closer to $9k. I hire college students for part time/summer work at my business as well and pay no less than $12/hr. So at least someone paying their own way could do it working for me--the two students I employ are doing just that.
| 171 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:20:24pm |
re: #162 BryanS
Disability insurance costs scale with your current income, and most policies will pay until your retirement if it ends up you are disabled that long. Insuring a minimum wag earner would probably run about $50/mo. I know people who live on minimum wage, yet very few of those people opt for disability insurance instead of paying their cable bill.
All that said, I'm not sure why the focus on disability here. Social Security taxes pay for that benefit. The current cap on income subject to social security taxes ensures that it doesn't become purely a welfare program.
Cable bill.
You might want to check this out:
[Link: livingwage.mit.edu...]
Good luck raising a family on the minimum wage.
| 172 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:23:13pm |
re: #170 BryanS
Er... if they worked 40 hour weeks for a little over three months straight during the summer, they'd only make $5,760. If they work 20 hours a week part-time the rest of the year, that's another $9,400. So with $15,160, they pay $9K tuition per year (where is this place, that's incredibly low for a college these days) and have about $6K left over for all expenses for the entire year?
Man, they're lucky they have $12 an hour jobs. Most people working part-time can't get jobs that pay that much.
| 173 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:24:10pm |
What's depressingly familiar about this conversation is that all the "pro-conservative" defenses being warmed over are, essentially, Democratic policies:
- preserve Social Security
- pay people an entry-level wage that enables them to save to improve themselves via education
- provide education that is affordable ($9K a year is either a public institution or a diploma mill, and we're not even talking about free K-12 education yet)
etc.
| 174 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:24:16pm |
re: #157 allegro
Being able to do more than plan to the next paycheck is a privileged position today. Wages have been stagnant for a couple of decades as prices have gone up. There is no money to save for that lovely plan. What is the conservative proposal for leveling the playing field to see workers paid for their increase in productivity rather than all of that money going to the top?
That no doubt has been a challenge. International trade/competition has made lower paid jobs that can be outsourced difficult to hold onto. There is no easy answer. Getting an education is one way to see that you don't end up at minimum wage. College tuition inflation though has made the cost of college not pay off for too many people. It's perhaps another topic for discussion, but the student loan system removed pricing pressures on colleges to control costs, and so paradoxically the loan programs have made college costs go up so much more than inflation that they are back to being as unaffordable as before such programs were put in place.
| 175 |
bubba zanetti Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:25:22pm |
re: #97 BryanS
I am used to the fact that conservatism pisses of liberals...
Isn't that the best part?
| 176 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:25:26pm |
re: #171 iossarian
Cable bill.
You might want to check this out:
[Link: livingwage.mit.edu...]
Good luck raising a family on the minimum wage.
Holy moly, when was that published? Housing expense for a family of four for $555? No way.
| 177 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:25:34pm |
re: #174 BryanS
What you're overlooking is that you're saying how an individual can get ahead, do better than other individuals. The point is to have a society where we don't have a few winners and a whole heap of losers, right? It's to have one where if you work a blue collar job you can have a comfortable life?
| 178 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:25:45pm |
re: #160 allegro
Tuition is only one expense and not necessarily the single highest. Books, lab fees, room and board, add up to that much again and more.
I was also an RA so that I could eat and have a place to live. That in addition to other employment helped a lot.
| 179 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:26:57pm |
re: #176 allegro
Holy moly, when was that published? Housing expense for a family of four for $555? No way.
It's for a depressed area in Michigan; the less likely thing there is finding a job.
| 180 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:28:07pm |
re: #174 BryanS
That no doubt has been a challenge. International trade/competition has made lower paid jobs that can be outsourced difficult to hold onto. There is no easy answer. Getting an education is one way to see that you don't end up at minimum wage. College tuition inflation though has made the cost of college not pay off for too many people. It's perhaps another topic for discussion, but the student loan system removed pricing pressures on colleges to control costs, and so paradoxically the loan programs have made college costs go up so much more than inflation that they are back to being as unaffordable as before such programs were put in place.
So what you're saying is that elite colleges should once again be the sole preserve of the wealthy, with a couple of scholarship kids let in every so often?
Pity the middle-income white kids. They're not going to like it.
| 181 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:28:32pm |
re: #161 Obdicut
I'm actually for 0% corporate taxes, and just going after individual income, partially to stop dumb arguments like this one, and partially because no matter how good a tax environment you have, corporations will always find a way to game the system.
Not too bad of an idea--really should only need to tax once anyway. If you tax the last stop on the road to the individuals earning off that company, it would be really hard to avoid taxes altogether.
But practically, the problem with 0% is that a wealthy individual could end up NEVER paying any tax on their business income. It has to be something more than 0%. Who'd of thought the conservative would argue against the liberal tossing out a 0% corporate tax :)
| 182 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:28:41pm |
re: #178 BryanS
I was also an RA so that I could eat and have a place to live. That in addition to other employment helped a lot.
You got full room and board for being an RA? That's... unusual but very cool.
| 183 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:29:03pm |
re: #176 allegro
Holy moly, when was that published? Housing expense for a family of four for $555? No way.
In Marquette County it's not impossible. I chose that one because it's a pretty cheap place to live, and yet it's still impossible to raise a family on the minimum wage there.
| 184 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:29:17pm |
re: #169 Obdicut
Why on earth are you adding together business and personal taxes?
Because my business is also my income?
| 185 |
andres Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:30:58pm |
re: #172 Obdicut
[...]So with $15,160, they pay $9K tuition per year (where is this place, that's incredibly low for a college these days)[...]
Well, there are places that can cost just about that, but it's extremely rare.
| 186 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:31:00pm |
re: #171 iossarian
Cable bill.
You might want to check this out:
[Link: livingwage.mit.edu...]
Good luck raising a family on the minimum wage.
I don't know anyone on minimum wage that also does not have some combination of rent assistance, utility assistance, access to food stamps, etc. There is a reason why the lowest income earners can be shown to have a negative tax rate.
| 187 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:31:07pm |
re: #181 BryanS
Not too bad of an idea--really should only need to tax once anyway.
But practically, the problem with 0% is that a wealthy individual could end up NEVER paying any tax on their business income. It has to be something more than 0%. Who'd of thought the conservative would argue against the liberal tossing out a 0% corporate tax :)
I don't know, because you're making no sense. If you have good, strong rules about personal income, a 'wealthy individual' is going to pay tax on their income. It doesn't matter if it's from a business or any other source.
| 188 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:31:43pm |
re: #184 BryanS
Because my business is also my income?
You don't take a salary? If your profits are your salary then your claim of paying 50% in taxes is seriously bullshit.
| 189 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:31:45pm |
re: #172 Obdicut
Er... if they worked 40 hour weeks for a little over three months straight during the summer, they'd only make $5,760. If they work 20 hours a week part-time the rest of the year, that's another $9,400. So with $15,160, they pay $9K tuition per year (where is this place, that's incredibly low for a college these days) and have about $6K left over for all expenses for the entire year?
Man, they're lucky they have $12 an hour jobs. Most people working part-time can't get jobs that pay that much.
They also work during the school year--as much as they want up to 30hrs if they can manage.
| 190 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:32:10pm |
re: #186 BryanS
I don't know anyone on minimum wage that also does not have some combination of rent assistance, utility assistance, access to food stamps, etc. There is a reason why the lowest income earners can be shown to have a negative tax rate.
Wait, are you in favor of rent assistance, utility assistance, food stamps, and so on?
| 191 |
jaunte Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:32:29pm |
re: #182 allegro
I got that for being an RA, too, but that's a very limited opportunity.
| 192 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:32:49pm |
re: #184 BryanS
Because my business is also my income?
Then you're doing it wrong? Are you incorporated as an S corp, or an LLC, or what? My business is also my income. I don't have anything close to a 50% tax burden, because I pay myself a reasonable salary, and my business income is treated as pass-through income. If, for some reason, you're incorporated as a C corp and doing dividends or what have you, then there's probably some reason you need a C corp and it's appropriate you pay C corp taxes.
| 193 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:33:03pm |
re: #175 bubba zanetti
Isn't that the best part?
I admit to some schadenfreude when Walker won his recall :)
| 194 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:34:19pm |
re: #189 BryanS
They also work during the school year--as much as they want up to 30hrs if they can manage.
My math was with them working during the school year, but I only had them doing 20 hours because I found when going to college I had to do stuff like study if I wanted to get anything out of my classes, and working 30 hours a week would have been too much to get studying done.
Seriously, dude, you're using an example of someone who's paid far above minimum wage, going to a college with a price far below the average, and your scenario still has them barely scraping by-- and obviously most people can't find $12 an hour jobs with all the hours they want.
Isn't this making you think at all?
| 195 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:35:52pm |
re: #194 Obdicut
My math was with them working during the school year, but I only had them doing 20 hours because I found when going to college I had to do stuff like study if I wanted to get anything out of my classes, and working 30 hours a week would have been too much to get studying done.
Seriously, dude, you're using an example of someone who's paid far above minimum wage, going to a college with a price far below the average, and your scenario still has them barely scraping by-- and obviously most people can't find $12 an hour jobs with all the hours they want.
Isn't this making you think at all?
It's making me think he's making most of it up.
| 196 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:35:53pm |
re: #194 Obdicut
My math was with them working during the school year, but I only had them doing 20 hours because I found when going to college I had to do stuff like study if I wanted to get anything out of my classes, and working 30 hours a week would have been too much to get studying done.
30 hours a week puts you at a very high risk of dropping out. Even 20 would raise serious red flags. College is meant to be a full-time job.
| 197 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:36:25pm |
re: #195 allegro
It's making me think he's making most of it up.
Or way underestimating the costs involved in going to even a cheap college these days.
| 198 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:38:12pm |
re: #195 allegro
It's making me think he's making most of it up.
I wouldn't say that. If you go to a good (free) K-12 system, and you get into a moderately selective (public) college, and you get a position as a (federally-funded) RA, and you're lucky that you don't get mono or hit by a car or any of the other unfortunate things that keep people from graduating, it's possible to make it through.
Quite why people think that government support is a bad thing when they've benefited massively from it is a mystery though.
| 199 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:39:35pm |
re: #180 iossarian
So what you're saying is that elite colleges should once again be the sole preserve of the wealthy, with a couple of scholarship kids let in every so often?
Pity the middle-income white kids. They're not going to like it.
Works for me...no really, it did. I only ever considered state schools because I could never afford an ivy league one. Despite graduating at the top of my class in high school and getting great standardized test scores, there was little on offer for scholarships that made any difference--I mean, 50% off of a huge Ivy league tuition bill is still a huge bill. Is Ivy league schooling a right?
| 200 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:39:44pm |
Still no answer on whether child-rearing counts as work, or not.
| 201 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:40:14pm |
re: #199 BryanS
Works for me...no really, it did. I only ever considered state schools because I could never afford an ivy league one. Despite graduating at the top of my class in high school and getting great standardized test scores, there was little on offer for scholarships that made any difference--I mean, 50% off of a huge Ivy league tuition bill is still a huge bill. Is Ivy league schooling a right?
So you agree that an affordable state-supported higher education system is a good thing?
| 202 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:41:26pm |
re: #182 allegro
You got full room and board for being an RA? That's... unusual but very cool.
Full room and board I thought was typical. At least I'm pretty sure it is the case at all the state and private schools in the state I live in.
| 203 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:41:48pm |
re: #199 BryanS
Works for me...no really, it did. I only ever considered state schools because I could never afford an ivy league one. Despite graduating at the top of my class in high school and getting great standardized test scores, there was little on offer for scholarships that made any difference--I mean, 50% off of a huge Ivy league tuition bill is still a huge bill. Is Ivy league schooling a right?
So... you went to a state school, which means you took advantage of the heavy government subsidy of them-- not to mention the land-grant that established them in the first place?
And seriously, if you're paying a total of 50% tax burden, you have your business set up terribly. Please talk to any tax attorney or even just a CPA and they will be able to show you how to vastly reduce that. You must be doing something totally backwards.
| 204 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:42:10pm |
Cal State plans to cut enrollment, due to budget cuts.
[Link: www.calstate.edu...]
There goes that affordable option!
| 205 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:43:23pm |
re: #187 Obdicut
I don't know, because you're making no sense. If you have good, strong rules about personal income, a 'wealthy individual' is going to pay tax on their income. It doesn't matter if it's from a business or any other source.
If they own a corporate form of business and you set the rate to zero, they will literally never pay tax on anything, ever, until they pay themselves a salary or dividend. Such a business owner could avoid taxes up until such time they withdraw funds from the company.
| 206 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:44:33pm |
re: #205 BryanS
If they own a corporate form of business and you set the rate to zero, they will literally never pay tax on anything, ever, until they pay themselves a salary or dividend. Such a business owner could avoid taxes up until such time they withdraw funds from the company.
And the problem with that is..? If the money stays in the company, and it doesn't go to them, I don't care. Why would I? Once it reaches an individual, it gets taxed.
What are you not getting here?
| 207 |
jaunte Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:45:40pm |
Top Romney Aide Can’t Explain How Romney Will Pay For His Plan To Increase Military Spending
...The seeming contradiction between growing military spending and cutting revenue proposed by Romney, while pledging to cut the national debt, already befuddles budget experts. Romney’s plan would increase military spending by nearly $2 trillion with no plan to pay for it while his aides have described the boosts in military spending as mere “target” numbers depending on economic growth.
| 208 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:47:14pm |
re: #207 jaunte
Top Romney Aide Can’t Explain How Romney Will Pay For His Plan To Increase Military Spending
What the hell? What country is he planning to invade to justify that kind of a defense increase?
| 209 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:47:41pm |
So far:
- social security is good and worth preserving
- it's a good thing that people on minimum wage get other forms of state support (food stamps, housing assistance etc.)
- publicly funded higher education is a good thing
- paying people a living wage is the right thing to do
- free, good quality K-12 education helps people to get ahead in life
I'm beginning to feel I could warm to this kind of conservatism. Maybe the "child-rearing as work" response will tip me over the edge.
| 210 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:47:44pm |
re: #208 allegro
What the hell? What country is he planning to invade to justify that kind of a defense increase?
America.
/
| 211 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:50:21pm |
Oops, I forgot the following:
- GOP control of the White House and Congress leads to irresponsible deficit spending
| 212 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:50:38pm |
re: #209 iossarian
...it's a good thing that people on minimum wage get other forms of state support (food stamps, housing assistance etc.)
Gotta disagree that this is a good thing. It's just corporate welfare - taxes supplementing companies' payrolls. Minimum wage should be living wage.
| 213 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:52:48pm |
re: #212 allegro
Gotta disagree that this is a good thing. It's just corporate welfare - taxes supplementing companies' payrolls. Minimum wage should be living wage.
Very much so, though I mostly offered it in contrast to the usual "true conservative" view that such income support is to be cut, cut and cut some more.
| 214 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:53:04pm |
re: #203 Obdicut
bryan should tell the members of his party to stop working so hard to kick out the leg up he got, coming from a family with limited resources, from all the tax subsidized education he took advantage of
| 216 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:53:38pm |
re: #190 iossarian
Wait, are you in favor of rent assistance, utility assistance, food stamps, and so on?
I am ok with assistance for people who work full time or for a limited period of time while in search of employment. Up to an extent. The systems are in fact abused. I know both abusers and people who genuinely need the assistance. Food assistance, and with the harsh winters where I live, utility assistance, are generally not a big sources of abuse. Rent assistance and the relatively little controls over the programs in the community I live in though seem to be one of the more abused programs.
But I am very much in favor of work requirements for eligibility in these programs.
| 217 |
sagehen Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:54:07pm |
re: #212 allegro
Gotta disagree that this is a good thing. It's just corporate welfare - taxes supplementing companies' payrolls. Minimum wage should be living wage.
You mean like how more than 10% of Wal-Mart employees are on food stamps and Medicaid?
[Link: www.ilsr.org...]
| 218 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:54:54pm |
re: #216 BryanS
But I am very much in favor of work requirements for eligibility in these programs.
Does "work" include child-rearing?
| 219 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:58:35pm |
re: #201 iossarian
So you agree that an affordable state-supported higher education system is a good thing?
Yes. Education is a necessary prerequisite for creating equal opportunity. I support state pols who are in favor of maintaining support for affordable education. Everyone who hates conservative Scott Walker probably also isn't aware of his recent affordable education initiative that in partnership with the UW should be launching this Fall. Would allow working individuals the ability to take courses over time for credit towards a Bachelor degree through the UW system. That would be great for people who couldn't just go full time into college or who are employed full time already and can't afford to step out of the work force.
| 220 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:58:39pm |
re: #216 BryanS
I am ok with assistance for people who work full time
Why are you OK with that? Why are you OK with your taxes supplementing the payrolls of profitable companies?
| 221 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:58:50pm |
re: #218 iossarian
Does "work" include child-rearing?
apparently for the spouses of some presidential candidates, but as for others opinions seem to vary
| 222 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 8:59:55pm |
re: #206 Obdicut
And the problem with that is..? If the money stays in the company, and it doesn't go to them, I don't care. Why would I? Once it reaches an individual, it gets taxed.
What are you not getting here?
What I'm getting is that this would be a huge tax shelter only available to the well off. I'm somewhat surprised you don't understand that.
| 223 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:00:50pm |
re: #220 allegro
Why are you OK with that? Why are you OK with your taxes supplementing the payrolls of profitable companies?
so i take it you don't support the bill declaring personhood for the unborn multinational oil companies?
| 224 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:01:42pm |
re: #212 allegro
Gotta disagree that this is a good thing. It's just corporate welfare - taxes supplementing companies' payrolls. Minimum wage should be living wage.
We could certainly double the minimum wage. That would probably be less intrusive from a regulatory standpoint. It would also kill the job market and push even more jobs overseas.
| 225 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:02:11pm |
re: #222 BryanS
What I'm getting is that this would be a huge tax shelter only available to the well off. I'm somewhat surprised you don't understand that.
If they are not taking any money out of their companies, then there is no tax to shelter is there? In order to live, most people need a salary and that is taxed. If they don't need the salary, then they pay taxes on the income they do have which I think should be taxed at the same rate.
| 226 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:04:38pm |
re: #219 BryanS
Yes. Education is a necessary prerequisite for creating equal opportunity. I support state pols who are in favor of maintaining support for affordable education. Everyone who hates conservative Scott Walker probably also isn't aware of his recent affordable education initiative that in partnership with the UW should be launching this Fall. Would allow working individuals the ability to take courses over time for credit towards a Bachelor degree through the UW system. That would be great for people who couldn't just go full time into college or who are employed full time already and can't afford to step out of the work force.
Jeebus. Scott Walker and his UW hatchet job?
I will provide you with a favorable analysis of his plans.
[Link: www.jsonline.com...]
Some highlights:
Many questions remain unanswered. Cross, for instance, said no prices have been set, and the overall cost of the program is unknown.
Fiscal conservatism! But wait, there's more!
Some start-up money for the competency testing would be needed, Cross said, but he didn't say how much. Walker said he was committed to finding start-up money, but did not elaborate.
The 2011-'13 state budget cut $250 million in funding from the UW System, prompting cost-cutting measures at all campuses, including larger class sizes on some campuses. An additional $46 million was cut from the UW System this year to help cover a state budget shortfall, and another $19 million is expected to be cut in 2013 because of an anticipated budget shortfall. The system offset some of the cuts by passing along more costs of benefits to employees as allowed under the state's new Act 10 legislation that curtailed public employee union bargaining.
If you're an RA at UW, your health insurance costs just went up.
Better start working more hours at that "part-time" job.
| 227 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:05:09pm |
re: #224 BryanS
We could certainly double the minimum wage. That would probably be less intrusive from a regulatory standpoint. It would also kill the job market and push even more jobs overseas.
Would it? Would it push the jobs overseas if perhaps the government made it uncomfortable or unprofitable to do that? So you are OK with your taxes supplementing the Walton family et al payrolls then?
| 228 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:05:53pm |
re: #222 BryanS
What I'm getting is that this would be a huge tax shelter only available to the well off. I'm somewhat surprised you don't understand that.
How is it a tax shelter? If they can't use the income, if it stays in the company, it's not benefiting them in any way.
You really seem like you're not grasping some essential stuff about the way taxes and business work.
| 229 |
jaunte Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:06:31pm |
Consumers can expect the worst US drought in 50 years to cast a shadow across food prices throughout 2013, according to fresh government data released today.
The estimates are the first to capture the effects of this summer's drought in America's heartland, and show food prices increasing at a rate well above normal expectations.
"We're expecting another year of tough food prices, bad news for consumers," said USDA food economist Richard Volpe."The difference between normal and higher than normal in this case is one hundred percent attributable to the drought," Volpe said.
| 230 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:07:45pm |
re: #228 Obdicut
How is it a tax shelter? If they can't use the income, if it stays in the company, it's not benefiting them in any way.
You really seem like you're not grasping some essential stuff about the way taxes and business work.
Again, it's a depressingly familiar pattern. Refusal to answer core questions, basic misunderstanding of personal and public economic issues, shallow awareness of promised right-wing "innovations" that are just dressed-up cuts to public services.
Same old same old.
| 231 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:09:24pm |
re: #218 iossarian
Does "work" include child-rearing?
No. They should be required to work. I'm ok with chid care assistance and exceptions for infant children. Child care assistance would be a reasonable accommodation.
By the way, it was GOP governor Thompson that modeled welfare work requirements and shifting carte blanche benefits to higher support levels for working recipients.
| 232 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:11:31pm |
re: #231 BryanS
No. They should be required to work. I'm ok with chid care assistance and exceptions for infant children. Child care assistance would be a reasonable accommodation.
So robbing Peter to pay Paul sounds like a good plan to you.
| 233 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:12:39pm |
re: #225 allegro
If they are not taking any money out of their companies, then there is no tax to shelter is there? In order to live, most people need a salary and that is taxed. If they don't need the salary, then they pay taxes on the income they do have which I think should be taxed at the same rate.
So you would be ok with someone who owns a company that generates millions of dollars a year in income paying income taxes only on say a $100k salary that the owner withdraws? I though you guys were the party of the Warren Buffett tax? He'd be lucky if he had a 1% tax bill under your system--it's really damn hard to spend billions on yourself each year.
| 234 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:15:38pm |
re: #233 BryanS
So you would be ok with someone who owns a company that generates millions of dollars a year in income paying income taxes only on say a $100k salary that the owner withdraws? I though you guys were the party of the Warren Buffett tax? He'd be lucky if he had a 1% tax bill under your system--it's really damn hard to spend billions on yourself each year.
If the company is generating millions of dollars a year, then it can pay reasonable living wages to employees. That income is taxed. If the owner is happy living on $100K a year, then that is the salary that should be taxed.
(I'm not the one who proposed a 0 corporate tax. I dunno how I feel about that without pondering on it further.)
| 235 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:15:47pm |
re: #227 allegro
Would it? Would it push the jobs overseas if perhaps the government made it uncomfortable or unprofitable to do that? So you are OK with your taxes supplementing the Walton family et al payrolls then?
Yes that would happen. If the companies were not allowed to relocate, they would lose business and collapse. Then not only were the jobs lost, but the business income would be lost as well. Some businesses would not be affected by this affect, but any company that makes a commodity would immediately become much less competitive with foreign companies with lower labor costs. .
| 236 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:16:04pm |
re: #233 BryanS
So you would be ok with someone who owns a company that generates millions of dollars a year in income paying income taxes only on say a $100k salary that the owner withdraws?
Yes. That would be fine, since he only has $100,000 salary. The income is staying in the company. What is wrong with that?
I though you guys were the party of the Warren Buffett tax? He'd be lucky if he had a 1% tax bill under your system--it's really damn hard to spend billions on yourself each year.
Actually, he'd have a much higher tax bill. Are you just getting confused between business income and capital gains or something?
| 237 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:18:24pm |
re: #231 BryanS
No. They should be required to work. I'm ok with chid care assistance and exceptions for infant children. Child care assistance would be a reasonable accommodation.
I take it you're not happy with the GOP's efforts to cut child care assistance then.
[Link: dyn.politico.com...]
| 238 |
dragonath Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:21:16pm |
re: #219 BryanS
No, we hate Scott Walker because he's shown himself to be a supporter of homophobic policies and a friend of anti-science organizations like the Heartland Institute. Your stated reasons for supporting Republican policy are highly disingenuous and based on false assumptions.
| 239 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:21:37pm |
re: #224 BryanS
We could certainly double the minimum wage. That would probably be less intrusive from a regulatory standpoint. It would also kill the job market and push even more jobs overseas.
well, that explains why henry ford instituted his famous five dollar day
he was trying to kill the job market and push even more jobs overseas
but how about this for an economic dynamic: engineers from all over the world flock to the united states and help keep the software industry here because engineer salaries are higher here, on the world market, than anywhere else
but people from mexico who have very little chance of earning a living at home flock to the united states and take jobs from american because employers know they will accept less than any american
that's reality, not a theory
| 240 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:22:56pm |
No comment, by the way, on Scott Walker's nebulous online education plan, nor his massive cuts to public higher education in Wisconsin.
| 241 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:23:16pm |
re: #224 BryanS
We could certainly double the minimum wage. That would probably be less intrusive from a regulatory standpoint. It would also kill the job market and push even more jobs overseas.
iirc you make a living running your own business so you have no skin in this game
| 242 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:24:26pm |
re: #235 BryanS
Yes that would happen. If the companies were not allowed to relocate, they would lose business and collapse. Then not only were the jobs lost, but the business income would be lost as well. Some businesses would not be affected by this affect, but any company that makes a commodity would immediately become much less competitive with foreign companies with lower labor costs. .
Not at all a given. WalMart, just for instance, can't relocate. It needs its stores here to rake in the billions of profits that it isn't paying its employees. Tariffs imposed on imported goods to equalize for pay disparities are a possibility to protect American workers. As working conditions and incomes rise in other countries - as is already happening - off-shoring isn't going to improve the bottom line. Will prices go up? Sure. As long as incomes are going up as well with workers sharing in the increased profitability that corporate CEOs and management have been stealing (yes, I'm going there) for the past couple of decades, those higher priced goods can be afforded.
| 243 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:24:35pm |
re: #228 Obdicut
How is it a tax shelter? If they can't use the income, if it stays in the company, it's not benefiting them in any way.
You really seem like you're not grasping some essential stuff about the way taxes and business work.
You really are the one not grasping concepts here. It seems like you are being intentionally obtuse about it--but maybe not; blogs aren't always good at determining intent.
They can't use the income? Even if they control the company? It would be like Warren Buffett's very own multi-billion dollar annual IRA, never paying a single cent in tax until he spends money. And there is a reason IRAs have caps for contribution. Just think how much living expenses can be classified as a business expense--vehicles, hotels stays, entertainment. You could really live it up off your company and take very little salary if you so chose to do so.
| 244 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:30:25pm |
re: #237 iossarian
I take it you're not happy with the GOP's efforts to cut child care assistance then.
[Link: dyn.politico.com...]
Some of the complaints about waste and abuse--like the examples of using food stamps for things other than food which I agree should not be allowed--are a problem of state management. I mentioned upthread where I live, food stamp programs are not abused. I'm pretty darn sure my state has good management in place since when I'm in line at the grocery store behind a food stamp user, I have to wait longer for their cart to be checked out twice--once for the covered items, and then again for uncovered items.
| 245 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:30:36pm |
re: #243 BryanS
You really are the one not grasping concepts here. It seems like you are being intentionally obtuse about it--but maybe not; blogs aren't always good at determining intent.
They can't use the income? Even if they control the company? It would be like Warren Buffett's very own multi-billion dollar annual IRA, never paying a single cent in tax until he spends money.
Exactly - the key being "until he spends money". If you live frugally and reinvest your money in the business, you don't pay much tax.
Just think how much living expenses can be classified as a business expense--vehicles, hotels stays, entertainment. You could really live it up off your company and take very little salary if you so chose to do so.
There are rules about what you can claim as a business expense. Now it's true that those rules could use some tightening up to avoid abuse. I wonder which party is more likely to work to restrict tax avoidance via improper business expenditures...
| 246 |
Obdicut Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:31:42pm |
re: #243 BryanS
They can't use the income? Even if they control the company?
No, they can't. You can't buy a house for yourself and call it a business expense. That's fraud, and the IRS bones you for it. You can use it for business things, if it's in the company. How can you not know this?
It would be like Warren Buffett's very own multi-billion dollar annual IRA, never paying a single cent in tax until he spends money.
Well, sure, if the person running the company wants to just sock it away, I'd be fine with that. Why would they, though?
Just think how much living expenses can be classified as a business expense--vehicles, hotels stays, entertainment.
You have a really naive view of this. You can't claim a car as a business expense unless you're a traveling salesman or the like. Entertainment has to be for a legitimate business reason, and it's only 50%. Likewise, hotel stays. The IRS actually does check up on this shit, especially if you're claiming a million dollars in business expense.
I'm sorry, but if you pay 50% total tax on your income from your business, then I know one thing and one thing only about you: You really aren't the guy to go to for understanding taxes and business.
| 247 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:32:19pm |
re: #244 BryanS
Some of the complaints about waste and abuse--like the examples of using food stamps for things other than food which I agree should not be allowed--are a problem of state management. I mentioned upthread where I live, food stamp programs are not abused. I'm pretty darn sure my state has good management in place since when I'm in line at the grocery store behind a food stamp user, I have to wait longer for their cart to be checked out twice--once for the covered items, and then again for uncovered items.
So your publicly-funded K-through-college education was a sound investment, but aid programs for the poor are riddled with waste, is that about the size of it?
| 248 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:33:06pm |
Just think how much living expenses can be classified as a business expense--vehicles, hotels stays, entertainment. You could really live it up off your company
and are usually the same people who scream loudest about the deficit
yet another definition of irony
| 249 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:33:13pm |
re: #243 BryanS
Just think how much living expenses can be classified as a business expense--vehicles, hotels stays, entertainment. You could really live it up off your company and take very little salary if you so chose to do so.
Not if the tax code made those things part of one's income and taxed them accordingly. Just like Republicans want to make medical insurance contributions by employers taxable income. See how easy that is?
| 250 |
iossarian Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:35:57pm |
OK, I'm just about done for the night. Once again, a classic exposition of the "every state expenditure that benefits me is a wise investment, while everything else is wasted on feckless scroungers with cable TV and too many children" conservative mindset.
Tune in tomorrow. Or not. Good night all.
| 251 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:37:59pm |
re: #239 engineer cat
well, that explains why henry ford instituted his famous five dollar day
he was trying to kill the job market and push even more jobs overseas
but how about this for an economic dynamic: engineers from all over the world flock to the united states and help keep the software industry here because engineer salaries are higher here, on the world market, than anywhere else
but people from mexico who have very little chance of earning a living at home flock to the united states and take jobs from american because employers know they will accept less than any american
that's reality, not a theory
Henry Ford did not have to compete in the integrated global market of today.
Don't expect the trend of high talent moving to the US to continue forever. In part because of bad immigration policies not allowing foreign students to stay here after graduating, more high tech startups are happening in India/Asia.
We still do have a work ethos that values innovation and creativity here in the US. These highly paid engineers come over here because we continue to out-innovate the world and can afford to pay more because of the economic results our companies deliver. The more we punish success, the less incentive there is to take the big risks that are needed innovate.
| 252 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:41:45pm |
re: #242 allegro
Not at all a given. WalMart, just for instance, can't relocate. It needs its stores here to rake in the billions of profits that it isn't paying its employees. Tariffs imposed on imported goods to equalize for pay disparities are a possibility to protect American workers. As working conditions and incomes rise in other countries - as is already happening - off-shoring isn't going to improve the bottom line. Will prices go up? Sure. As long as incomes are going up as well with workers sharing in the increased profitability that corporate CEOs and management have been stealing (yes, I'm going there) for the past couple of decades, those higher priced goods can be afforded.
Your point about local retail establishments is valid. But that doesn't mean Walmart couldn't shift more of its work force oversees.
Tariffs aren't a good answer--other countries will just do the same right back at us. As you may recall from history, that kind of protectionism made the Great Depression even worse due the harm it did to trade.
| 253 |
BryanS Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:43:39pm |
I'm out as well...spent more time on the thread than I intended :)
| 254 |
dragonath Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:48:57pm |
re: #244 BryanS
I'm pretty darn sure my state has good management in place since when I'm in line at the grocery store behind a food stamp user, I have to wait longer for their cart to be checked out twice--once for the covered items, and then again for uncovered items.
I don't know what the purpose of this little ancedote is. It appears that you're holding these people in contempt for wasting your precious time.
What works for you does not assume that it will lead to success for other people. Life is not one-size-fits-all.
| 255 |
allegro Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:50:17pm |
re: #251 BryanS
Henry Ford did not have to compete in the integrated global market of today.
Henry Ford understood economics. Clearly you are still fuzzy on the concept that unless people are paid enough to afford the products, no one will be able to buy them. A company with no customers is out of business, regardless of where it is located. Do you think the dollar-a-day Chinese workers can buy the iPads they are making?
Don't expect the trend of high talent moving to the US to continue forever. In part because of bad immigration policies not allowing foreign students to stay here after graduating, more high tech startups are happening in India/Asia.
High talent will always come here as long as this is where the higher salaries are. Funny how we keep coming back to that, isn't it?
We still do have a work ethos that values innovation and creativity here in the US. These highly paid engineers come over here because we continue to out-innovate the world and can afford to pay more because of the economic results our companies deliver.
Yes, US corporations have been raking in record profits. Unfortunately, they're doing in on the backs of their workers and trashing the middle class as their top level management gets richer and richer. THIS is what is unsustainable. Fewer able to buy those wonderfully clever, innovative products.
The more we punish success, the less incentive there is to take the big risks that are needed innovate.
Oh bullshit. Punish success. Enough crap for me tonight. 'Night all.
| 256 |
palomino Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:53:01pm |
re: #21 BryanS
The point was pretty clear in the Obama campaign speech that he was making a traditional left argument for increasing taxes. He goes out of his way to say that just because you work hard, were smart about how you ran your business, that those qualities are not the reason for your success. It frames the businessman as just lucky and does not deserve the benefits of their hard work--others who did not have this 'luck' need your earnings because they are everyone's earnings. That is not a winning political message except to those firmly on the left.
The real substance of the Obama campaign blurb that lead to the 'you didn't build that' brouhaha is the reason this issue will not be dropped by the GOP. 'you didn't build that' may not have had the precise meaning in the Obama speech that it has been characterized in attack ads. But the phrase 'out of context' summarizes the full context and content of his speech.
Yeah, Obama clearly doesn't believe that things like brains, initiative and hard work play a role in success. Because he and his family and friends are mostly unsuccessful, stupid and lazy. All he did was come from a middle class broken home to become president. So he must not identify with those hard working achiever types...like his wife and all his friends and associates.
He wants to raise taxes back to Clinton era rates and you're overreacting like he's imposing something radically left wing. Bottom line: you're full of shit.
| 257 |
engineer cat Thu, Jul 26, 2012 9:53:11pm |
re: #251 BryanS
Henry Ford did not have to compete in the integrated global market of today.
oh? please revisit your history sources
Don't expect the trend of high talent moving to the US to continue forever. In part because of bad immigration policies not allowing foreign students to stay here after graduating, more high tech startups are happening in India/Asia.
i've been hearing about this "trend" - of high tech moving overseas - ever since i first started studying computer science 30 years ago
didn't happen yet
if we accept lower wages, we will become a country earns lower wages
We still do have a work ethos that values innovation and creativity here in the US. These highly paid engineers come over here because we continue to out-innovate the world and can afford to pay more because of the economic results our companies deliver.
if you worked with them, like i do, you could ask them why they came here, like i do, and you would then know that your suppositions, above, are incorrect, like i do
The more we punish success, the less incentive there is to take the big risks that are needed innovate.
why does the concept of "punishing success" not come into your mind when it comes to minimum wage workers and the rest of us salary and wage earners?
to me, it is the GOP that is "punishing success" these days, by keeping wages down, and by pissing on public sector employees and promising to fire more of them and take away their benefits
"punishing success" - the GOP uses the word "success" as if only ceo's and millionaires are "successful"
| 258 |
Vicious Babushka Fri, Jul 27, 2012 4:22:41am |
re: #179 Obdicut
It's for a depressed area in Michigan; the less likely thing there is finding a job.
Since the GM bailout, jobs have really been increasing in Michigan, particularly high-paying salaried positions in the STEM areas (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics), almost all of these jobs are automotive but there are also some high-tech jobs up for grabs at Quicken Loans which is building a business center in Detroit. So that's fresh air for a bunch of us automotive professionals who suffered through a long jobs drought from about 2002-2010, which the bank crash of 2008 made even worse.
Housing is still cheap compared to the rest of the country.
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ...
Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... CheechakoKGxvi
Abortions Outside Medical System Increased Sharply After Roe Fell, Study Finds The number of women using abortion pills to end their pregnancies on their own without the direct involvement of a U.S.-based medical provider rose sharply in the months after the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right to abortion, according ... Cheechako
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
